LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



THE 



Token of the Covenant, 



OR THE 



RIGHT USE OF BAPTISM. 



2f 



> - 

BY R. H. MAHON, D.l 

MEMPHIS CONFERENCE. 




NASHVILLE: 

Southern Methodist Publishing House. 

Printed for the Author. 
1886. 



A 



33 



Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1886, 

By R. H. Mahon, 
in the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at "Washington. 



The Library 
op Congress 

washington 



PREFACE. 

Another book on baptism may seem to be superfluous. 
But as long as the question remains unsettled, men will 
think and speak. It is idle to attribute the divisions on 
this subject to mere prejudice. There is doubtless enough 
of that, but the main cause is an honest difference of opin- 
ion as to the teaching of the Scriptures. It is by line 
upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a 
little, that all differences are to be finally adjusted. The 
present treatise does not pretend to effect a final settlement 
of the question. The author thinks, however, that he here 
contributes somewhat to a better understanding of the sub- 
ject by a clear and definite statement of the question at 
issue, and by the arrangement of the argument, if in noth- 
ing else. 

The covenant character of the Christian ordinance is the 
basis of the argument for both the Design and the Subjects. 
Baptism is presented as the token of the covenant of grace 
instead of the door into the Church. This I regard as the 
Scripture teaching, and beyond refutation. Under the 
Design of Baptism a careful and critical analysis is given 
of all those Scripture texts that are involved in this con- 
troversy, which is no small feature of the work. As to 
the Subjects of Baptism no allusion is made to the abun- 

(3) 



4 PBEFA(?E. 

dant testimony of the Fathers concerning the baptism of 
children in the early times. The argument is purposely 
confined to the teaching of the Scriptures. "What is de- 
manded of us is Scripture proof. I think I have given it, 
and that too in a way that has not been presented by an- 
other. 

Few ordinary readers understand what is meant by the 
(t action n of baptism as it is used in this controversy by 
immersionists. It is from this stand-point that the mode 
of administering the ordinance is here discussed. The ar- 
gument is presented so that the humblest reader may see 
clearly the truth of our proposition. To adduce the many 
instances of the use of baptizo by classical Greek writers 
would be to repeat what has been often done, and to in- 
crease the size of this volume beyond my wish. I have 
therefore given the use of the word as it appears in the 
holy writings, intending throughout to make a purely 
scriptural argument in favor of the Methodist doctrine. 
No attempt is made at fine writing. As few words and as 
plain words as possible are employed to convey the mean- 
ing. If what is here written shall contribute to the fur- 
therance of the truth, I shall feel amply rewarded. 

E. II. Mahon. 

Memphis, Tenn. 5 July 1, 1886. 



CONTENTS. 



PART FIRST. 
Design of Baptism. page 

Chapter I. Views of the Subject — Baptism not De- 
signed to Kepresent the Burial and Resurrection of 
Jesus Christ 9 

Chapter II. Baptism not the Instrument of Regenera- 
tion nor a Condition of Pardon 17 

Chapter III. Scripture Texts Supposed to Favor the 
Doctrine of Baptism for the Remission of Sins Exam- 
ined and Explained: Mark i. 4; xvi. 16; John iii. 5. 28 

Chapter IV. Examination of Scripture Texts (contin- 
ued): Acts ii. 38; 1 Pet. iii. 20; Rom. vi. 1-4; Ti- 
tus iii. 5 43 

Chapter V. Justification by Faith Only 65 

PART SECOND. 
Subjects of Baptism. 
Chapter I. The Question Stated — God's Covenant with 
Abraham Stated and Explained, and the Relation 

of Children to it Established 79 

Chapter II. The Perpetuity of the Abrahamic Cove- 
nant , 03 

Chapter III. Baptism the Sign and Seal of the Cove- 
nant, and not the Door of the Church 105 

Chapter IV. New Testament Authority for Infant Bap- 
tism 110 

Chapter V. Objections Stated and Answered 12S 

(5) 



CONTENTS. 



PART THIRD. 
Mode of Baptism. page 

Chapter I. The Question Stated According to the 
Views of Leading Immersionists — The "Definite 
Act " Theory Most Indefinite . .• 147 

Chapter II. Testimony of the Lexicons 162 

Chapter III. Instances of Baptism in the New Testa- 
ment — John's Baptism — Baptism of Jesus 178 

Chapter IV. Baptism of the Eunuch — Red Sea Bap- 
tism — Baptized into Christ — Baptism not a Burial . . 192 

Chapter V. Proofs in Favor of Pouring and Sprink- 
ling 210 

Meaning of Bapto 213 

Meaning of Baptizo 217 

Baptism of Naaman 217 

Baptism from a Dead Body 220 

Baptism of Judith 223 

Baptism by Iniquity , 225 

Divers Baptisms 226 

Jewish Baptisms 228 

Baptism of the Holy Ghost 2s2 



PART FIRST. 

DESIGN OF BAPTISM 



CHAPTER I. 

Views of the Subject. — Baptism Not Designed to 
Represent the Burial and Resurrection of Jesus 
Christ. 

One would suppose that a matter so plain and 
so easy of understanding as the design or pur- 
pose of Christian baptism w r ould have been 
settled long ago, or rather would never have 
become the subject of controversy at all. But 
such is not the case. Differences arose in the 
early history of the Church that have not yet 
been adjusted; indeed, some of the most fiery 
discussions have prevailed about this question, 
and about all cognate questions of baptism. 
Denominations of Christians are widely sepa- 
rated from each other on this issue, and people 
of the same Church, in some instances, enter- 
tain very different opinions concerning it. Not 
only the design but the subjects and the mode of 
baptism have been and still are a bone of con- 
tention. The roots of the controversy, however, 
are in the design of the ordinance. If this could 
be definitely settled, the whole of the baptismal 
controversy would soon come to an end. 

I do not presume to be able to contribute all 
that is necessary to the adjustment of the dif- 

W 



10 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

ferences held in all sincerity and candor by 
opposing parties; but I trust I shall be able 
to contribute somewhat to a better understand- 
ing of the subject. A fair and candid discussion 
of the matter is at least in order. It is remark- 
able to observe the great divergence of opinion 
respecting the meaning of baptism. Baptists, 
for example, teach that baptism is intended to 
represent the burial and resurrection of Jesus 
Christ from the dead, and that it is a mark or 
sign of regeneration to them that receive it. 
In consequence it is, according to this view, to 
be administered only to such as profess regen- 
eration, and must invariably be an immersion. 
The immersion in water is an attempt to im- 
itate the manner of the burial and resurrection 
of Jesus Christ from the dead; that as he went 
down into the grave and in due time arose from 
it, so we in our baptism must in humble imita- 
tion of nim go down into the water and come 
up again out of it. 

To support this extreme view an appeal is 
sometimes made to the use of the sacrament 
of the Supper, which is said to have been in- 
stituted to represent Christ's death as a stand- 
ing memorial, as baptism does his burial and 
resurrection. But this is not the purport of 
the Supper. It does not represent his death — 



DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 11 



that is, the manner of it. It represents his 
"body" which was given for the life of the 
world, that as bread sustains — gives life, 
health, strength — so is Jesus Christ the life of 
the world. The Supper itself is simply a me- 
morial-service, in the keeping of which we do 
"show forth the death" of our Lord until his 
coming again — that is, our belief and interest 
in his death, and not the manner of his dying 
at all. 

There is to my mind little or no founda- 
tion in the Bible for the idea that baptism 
was appointed to represent the burial and 
resurrection of Jesus Christ. The only pas- 
sages of scripture that mention baptism in 
connection with burial and resurrection are 
Bom. vi. 4 and Col. ii. 12, and these, though 
relied on mainly, are very far from teaching 
that the original design of the Christian ordi- 
nance is to represent to the mind the? burial 
and resurrection of oar Lord. 

In Komans it is said: "Therefore we are 
buried with him by baptism into death; that 
like as Christ was raised from the dead by the 
glory of the Father, even so we also should 
walk in newness of life." To sustain the the- 
ory this ought to read: "That like as Christ 
was put into the grave and raised up from the 



12 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

dead by the glory of the Father, even so we 
also ought to be buried with him by baptism 
into the water and raised up out of it, that we 
might represent his burial and resurrection." 
But this is not the meaning of the scripture. 
If baptism is designed to represent or signify 
a burial at all, it is not the burial and resur- 
rection of Jesus Christ, but the mystical burial 
and resurrection of believers in him. And 
even this is not the prime idea of the ordinance. 
The idea in the text is that "we are buried 
with him by baptism unto death." Not, indeed, 
that we are put under the water, or buried in 
any physical sense whatever, but buried into 
death. The burial is mystical. With those 
w r ho enter a new life there is a crucifixion of 
the flesh, and the affections and lusts thereof, 
and they are said to die unto the world. It is not 
a physical death. They do not go out of the 
world. To complete the argument the apostle 
extends the figure and speaks of a burial and 
a resurrection succeeding this death to sin. 
The character of the burial must correspond 
with the character of the death. If the death 
were physical the burial would be physical. 
But the death is mystical, spiritual, a death to 
sin and to the world. The burial and resur- 
rection are therefore mystical and spiritual, 



DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 13 

having reference to newness of life on the part 
of the believer. Now baptism was not intend- 
ed by its mode or manner of performance to 
represent either the burial and resurrection of 
Christ or that of the believer; but the design 
and purpose of it contemplated death to sin 
and newness of life to every one who is bap- 
tized unto Jesus Christ. 

I know it is said, "For if we be planted to- 
gether in the likeness of his death we shall be 
also in the likeness of his resurrection." But 
the comparison here is not between Christ's 
burial and resurrection and our baptism, as if 
we are obliged to be baptized after the manner 
of a burial — that is, immersed — in order that 
we may represent Christ's burial; but the com- 
parison is between Christ's physical death and 
resurrection and our death to sin and quick- 
ening unto righteousness, or newness of life — 
that as certainly as he died to this world and 
revived, so must we be associated with him in 
our death to sin. And if we be thus planted 
together we shall certainly be in the likeness 
of his resurrection. To be planted together 
does not mean to be baptized, neither do we 
bear the likeness of his resurrection in ascend- 
ing from the watery grave, but in being quick- 
ened by the Spirit into a higher and better life. 



14 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

It is very certain, therefore, that this script- 
ure does not favor in the least the idea that the 
aim and purpose of baptism are to represent 
as a sort of standing memorial the burial and 
resurrection of Jesus Christ. And what is 
true of this passage is also true of Col. ii. 12, 
which is no doubt parallel to it in meaning as 
well as in expression. The truth is, an immer- 
sion in water is a very poor representation of 
the burial and resurrection of Jesus. Those 
familiar with the place and manner of his 
burial, and the circumstances attending his 
resurrection, can see little or no comparison 
between them and an immersion in water. 

To carry out the figure, it would be appro- 
priate to keep the candidate under the water 
three days. I wonder that some strict con- 
structionist has not suggested it long ago. It 
is impossible to reconcile this view of the de- 
sign of baptism with other distinctive teach- 
ings of the Baptist Church itself: for instance, 
they tell us that baptism was introduced by 
John the Baptist — said to be the founder of 
their Church — and that the design of John's 
baptism and that of Christ and his apostles 
was one and the same. If this be so, and bap- 
tism is intended to represent the burial and 
resurrection of Christ, why was it that John 



DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 15 

himself did not know that fact? He certainly 
knew the purpose of his own baptism. But 
he never mentioned it in connection with any 
burial. The truth is, Christ's death and resur- 
rection were a profound mystery to John, as 
they were to all the people. He baptized, he 
said, " unto repentance." It in no sense signified 
the resurrection of Christ, and had no reference 
whatever to his death and burial. Neither did 
the disciples of Christ understand this to be the 
meaning of baptism. They administered the 
ordinance (John iv. 2), and therefore did cer- 
tainly know something of its purpose and de- 
sign. But we gather from the Scripture* that 
they knew nothing of the resurrection of Christ 
from the dead before his passion (Mark ix.Sl, 
32) : "For he taught his disciples, and said unto 
them, The Son of man is delivered into the 
hands of men, and they shall kill him; and aft- 
er that he is killed, he shall rise the third day. 
But they understood not that saying, and were 
afraid to ask him." But that is the very thing 
they must have understood, if they were bap- 
tizing all along to represent the fact to the 
minds of the people. 

If the baptism that John preached and 
Christian baptism are one in design, and were 
intended to represent the burial and resurres- 



16 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

tion of Jesus, why should all those whom John 
baptized be required to submit to the rite again 
under the ministry of the apostles? John 
baptized all Jerusalem and they of Judea, and 
of the coast round about the Jordan. Every 
one of them who accepted Christ had to be 
baptized again, which would certainly have 
not been the case if the design of baptism was 
the same in both instances. 

It is useless to pursue this subject farther, for 
it is evident that the original intent of baptism 
is not to represent the burial and resurrection 
of Jesus our Lord from the dead. 



CHAPTER If. 

Baptism Not the Instrument of Kegeneration nor 
a Condition of Pardon. 



Another view of the subject is that commonly- 
held by the Romish Church, a part of the Lu- 
theran Church, and all High-church Episcopa- 
lians. It is usually styled the doctrine of bap- 
tismal regeneration. It is an extreme view. 
According to it the water in baptism is some- 
how empowered to wash away sins, both original 
depravity and the guilt of actual transgressions. 
This doctrine has been taught by Church coun- 
cils and handed down by prelates until multi- 
tudes accept it without stopping to inquire for 
themselves as to its truth or scriptural ness. 

It is not worth while to present the unrea- 
sonableness of such a doctrine as a proof or 
remonstrance against its acceptance. The 
credulity that can discern in the bread and 
wine of the eucharist the real body and the real 
blood of Jesus Christ is not to be daunted by 
the unreasonableness of things. Reason is out 
of the question. It is simply a matter of as- 
sertion and belief. There are some passages of 
scripture that may seemingly favor the notion 
that baptism is an instrument in regeneration. 

2 (17j 



18 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

I say seemingly, because there is not one that 
really does so teach. These scriptures shall 
be examined and explained in due time, but it 
must be done in connection with the answer 
that may be given to another view of the sub- 
ject much like this but still different from it. 
I mean the doctrine commonly held by the 
Christian Church — sometimes called "Disciples 
of Christ," but more generally known as Camp- 
bellites. The Kev. Alexander Campbell, the 
founder of this sect, and his followers were for 
a long time supposed to adhere to the Eomish 
theory of baptismal regeneration. Indeed, 
many of the utterances of Mr. Campbell, put 
forth in his various writings on the subject, 
justified the suspicion, as did also some of the 
utterances of the leading men of that Church. 
But of late years the doctrine of that denom- 
ination is more closely defined and much bet- 
ter understood, if indeed its teaching on the 
subject has not been modified in some measure. 
The Campbellite theory (I use the word 
Campbellite in no offensive sense) is, that 
while there is no virtue in the water in bap- 
tism to wash away sins, and nothing in the 
performance that can merit salvation, yet it 
has pleased God to appoint baptism to be a 
condition of pardon to 'penitent believers. That it 



DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 19 

is a sort of test performance by which one's 
faith and willingness to obey God are tried 
and proved to be genuine, and that pardon or 
remission of sins is offered to penitent believ- 
ers for end on account of the obedience rendered 
to God in baptism. 

This is about as clear and definite a state- 
ment of the doctrine as I can make. This is 
the teaching of the ablest representatives of 
that Church, and, as is apparent, differs widely 
from the theory of water baptism regeneration. 
It ha3 gained considerable credence and boasts 
of mighty scriptural support. It shall be our 
business, therefore, to examine some of the 
arguments and scripture proofs usually em- 
ployed to sustain this dogma. In doing so, if 
I am at all successful in demonstrating the 
unscripturalness of the doctrine, I shall of 
course in the same measure refute the cognate 
doctrine of baptismal regeneration. For al- 
though they are distinct in form and state- 
ment, yet they stand or fall together, relying 
as they do on the same scripture texts for sup- 
port. 

In support of this doctrine it is assumed 
that while faith is the ordinary means of salva- 
tion and the only condition of justification, yet 
before faith itself can be recognized and par- 



20 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

don granted it must necessarily culminate in some 
act of obedience to God. The Scriptures, we are 
told, have appointed baptism as the act in which 
faith must declare itself, and that it indeed 
is the practical test of faith. This assumption 
— for it is nothing more — the advocates have il- 
lustrated in various ways. Take the follow- 
ing : "At one time the Israelites as they passed 
through the wilderness were bitten by serpents. 
For their cure God commanded that a pole 
should be erected and on it a brazen serpent 
should be placed. The bitten ones were com- 
manded to look, with the promise that they 
should live. Surely there was no efficacy in 
the mere act of looking, nor was there any 
efficacy in the brazen serpent to heal them. 
Yet when they did look they were healed. 
Noivjust as one would look in obedience to the 
command of God and he was healed, so it is that 
a man men/ be baptized and have his sins remit- 
ted." (Wilkes and Ditzler Debate, page 207.) 
This is a very clear statement of the point at 
issue, but a most unfortunate illustration for 
the doctrine itself. It is the very figure em- 
ployed in the Scriptures to show the relation 
of faith, and not of baptism, to the remission of 
sins. "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the 
wilderness, even so must the Son of man be 



DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 21 



lifted up, that whosoever believeth on him [not 
whosoever is baptized] may have eternal life." 
The point of comparison is between looking 
and believing, not between looking and being 
baptized. 

The marriage contract is sometimes men- 
tioned as analogous. As the marriage of two 
persons is never complete until the engage- 
ment is witnessed formally as the law directs, 
so it is affirmed the remission of sins is never 
granted until faith culminates in obedience to 
the ordinance of baptism. But there is no 
analogy between the two; for while the law 
requires that no marriage agreement shall be 
considered consummated until formally wit- 
nessed, the law of God does not restrain pardon 
until the faith of the individual shall have de-" 
clared itself in obedience to the rite of baptism, 
or in any other practical way. 

Naaman the Syrian, it is said, was not healed 
of his leprosy until, in obedience to the com- 
mand of the prophet, he had dipped himself in 
the Jordan. Very true; but baptism is not to 
us what this dipping was to Naaman. The 
prophet commanded him to go wash in Jordan, 
with the assurance that he should recover. 
But God has not coupled any such assurance 
with baptism. The meaning of this doctrine 



22 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

is that we are justified not by faith, as the 
Scriptures say, but by faith and baptism, or, as 
may very properly be stated, faith and works. 
This I conceive to be unsound and unscriptur- 
al to the core. It requires that faith in Christ, 
which is the spirit of obedience, shall not be 
considered acceptable before God until the will- 
ingness or disposition to obey has appeared in 
some outward actual work of obedience. No 
one can object to practical obedience whenever 
and wherever there is opportunity. Indeed, 
without it faith is dead, as the apostle James 
declares. But it is not true that the will, the 
piopose to obey must invariably be accompa- 
nied by the deed in order that the command- 
ment may be kept, or that faith may be 
considered genuine; for if that were true, 
then it would also necessarily follow that the 
disposition or purpose to disobey the will of 
God in any respect would have to manifest it- 
self in the act of disobedience before guilt 
could accrue. But this we know is not the 
law. It is for the spirit of obedience and for 
the spirit of disobedience that we are accounted 
righteous or guilty before God, and not alone for 
the deeds done in the body. " For we know." 
says Paul, "that the law is spiritual" It may 
therefore be violated in heart and in spirit. 



DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 23 



In illustration of this Jesus gave an example: 
"Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after 
her hath committed adultery with her already 
in his heart." The intent, the purpose, the de- 
sire, were there, and the law was violated. The 
want of opportunity for the thought of the 
heart to execute its purpose in the act does not 
in the least lessen the guilt in the sight of 
God. Just so it is with the spirit of obedience. 
It is the willingness and purpose to obey that 
God esteems, whether the opportunity for 
practical obedience appear at once or not. Of 
course if there be opportunity practical obedi- 
ence will follow, but it is not necessary that it 
should do so at all times to fulfill the demands 
of the law. As we have often heard, * God 
sometimes accepts the will for the deed." 
And even where there is outward conformity 
to the law it is not imputed at all for right- 
eousness. It is always the purpose of the 
heart that gives complexion to the deed and to 
the character of the man. 

We must consider, too, that if the principle 
be true that faith, before it can be imputed 
for righteousness or be considered genuine, 
must demonstrate itself in some act of prac- 
tical obedience — as the advocates of this the- 
ory affirm — then it must have alwa3 7 s been 



24 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

the case; for it must be of the very nature and 
character of the law that it should be so. 
If it has always been the case, then I ask> On 
what condition was justification or the pardon 
of sins offered before baptism was instituted? 
What act of obedience did faith have to culmi- 
nate in all along from Abraham to Christ in 
order to obtain God's mercy? There was cer- 
tainly something appointed for faith to declare 
itself in if this doctrine be true. There must 
have been some test, so to speak. What, then, 
was it? 

We cannot evade this by assuming that there 
was no remission of sins under the former dis- 
pensations. Abel obtained witness that he 
was righteous. Abraham was justified, and 
became the father of the faithful. And so of 
a long list of worthies, who, it is said, " all died 
in the faith." I repeat, then, if faith must 
necessarily appear in practical form before it 
can be imputed for righteousness, in what 
way was this done all the while before bap- 
tism was instituted? If we say that it was 
by obedience to the moral law — the Ten 
Commandments — the apostle stoutly affirms 
"that by the deeds of the law shall no fiesh 
be justified." Or if we say that it was by obe- 
dience to the ceremonial lav/, which consist- 



DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 25 

ed in sacrificial offerings and forms o£ worship, 
then we are again confronted by the Scriptures. 
In Heb. x. 1-4: "For the law having a shadow 
of good things to come, and not the very image 
of the things, can never with those sacrifices, which 
thei) offered year by year continually, make the 
comers thereunto perfect. For then ivould they 
not hare ceased to he offered? because that the wor- 
shipers once purged should hare had no more con- 
science of sins. But in those sacrifices there is 
a remembrance again made of sins every year. 
For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of 
goats should take away sins." So w r e see that 
sacrifices could not serve the purpose. 

That which stood related to the old dispen- 
sation as baptism does to the new was circum- 
cision. If any thing can be said to have served 
as a trial or test of faith it certainly must be 
this. But circumcision, though it was the sign 
and seal of the covenant, was never a condition 
of pardon or means of justification. Abra- 
ham's faith w r as imputed unto him for right- 
eousness before he was circumcised , "and he re- 
ceived the sign of circumcision, a seal of the 
righteousness of the faith which he had yet 
being uncircumcised. " And the Scriptures re- 
peatedly affirm that circumcision sustained no 
such rel ation to th e remission of sins. The idea, 



26 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

therefore, that faith, in order to secure remis- 
sion of sins, must appear in some practical 
work of obedience before pardon can be found, 
is without foundation and wholly against the 
teaching of the Scriptures. 

But, it is asked, can any be saved who are 
not baptized? That depends entirely upon 
circumstances. If one cannot be baptized for 
lack of opportunity, or for w r ant of ability in 
some way, he may certainly be saved without 
baptism. But if one should despise the ordi- 
nance, or through indifference neglect it, he 
could lay no claim to the divine favor. But 
this is no mark that baptism is a condition of 
pardon or of salvation in the important sense 
of which we speak. For the same may be said 
of every other moral precept or positive com- 
mandment. Take the fourth commandment, 
for example: "Kemember the Sabbath-day to 
keep it holy." If one willfully profane the 
day of the Lord, will he be pleasing or accept- 
ed before God? Certainly not. But does it 
follow by any means that the keeping of the 
Sabbath-day is a necessary condition of par- 
don? Most assuredly not. And yet if we 
break this commandment we are guilty, and 
justly condemned. One may keep the Sab- 
bath-day all his life, and do many other good 



DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 27 

deeds besides, and yet for lack of the one 
thing needful never obtain deliverance from sin. 
So it is with baptism. It is enjoined, and we 
must observe it. To disregard it is to for- 
feit the divine favor. But the keeping of this 
command does not by any means secure the re- 
mission of sins. Baptism is a positive insti- 
tute, and we are bound to receive it. Those 
who neglect it, or willfully reject it, have little 
of the spirit of obedience to Christ. But the 
ordinance was never intended to be a test of 
our faith, nor a condition of pardon. Remis- 
sion of sins is dependent on conditions entirely 
different. Those who hold this theory, there- 
fore, have wholly missed the purpose and de- 
sign of Christian baptism. 



CHAPTER 111. 

Scripture Texts Supposed to Favor the Doctrine 
of Baptism for the Remission of Sins Examined 
and Explained: Mark i. 4, xvi. 16; John hi. 5. 



I shall in the next place consider those pas- 
sages of scripture that are supposed to teach 
the doctrine that baptism is " for the remission 
of sins" in some way. While some of these 
passages may seemingly favor the doctrine, I 
think it will appear, by fair construction and 
under a close analysis, that not one single pas- 
sage in the word of God gives real counte- 
nance to this monstrous dogma. 

The first to be examined, because the jirst 
in order in the New Testament, is Mark i. 
4 : " John did baptize in the wilderness, and 
preach the baptism of repentance for the re- 
mission of sins." 

Why the baptism of John, the forerunner of 
Christ, should be offered in proof that Chris- 
tian baptism is "for the remission of sins" I 
cannot imagine, unless it is because of the 
mere association cf the word baptism with re- 
mission, It requires but a little reflection, 
however, to enable one to see that the object cf 
John's baptism was not to secure in any imme- 
(-28) 



DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 29 

diate way the pardon of sins, but that it was 
for a very different purpose. The advocates 
of this theory themselves hold that the plan of 
redemption was not fully perfected and re- 
vealed until the day of Pentecost, when the 
door of the kingdom of heaven was opened to 
all nations by the ministry of Peter and the 
other apostles. Now if this be true, and the 
remission of sins was not granted (as the 
friends of this doctrine affirm) until Pentecost, 
how could John's baptism, which fulfilled the 
purpose of its appointment before Pentecost, 
have been the immediate condition of pardon? 
It must be remembered, too, that John baptized 
immense multitudes — " all Jerusalem, and they 
of Judea, and the coast round about the Jor- 
dan." But, I ask, were the sins of all these 
people remitted, and assurance of pardon 
granted unto them? This must have been the 
case, if the object of John's baptism was to 
serve as an instrument of salvation or a con- 
dition of pardon to them. But that it was not 
the case is evident from the universal ignorance 
of salvation among the people when Jesus and 
his disciples began their ministry. 

And again, how can we reconcile with this 
idea the fact that all those whom John bap- 
tized were made the subjects of Christian bap- 



30 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

tism when they professed faith in Christ un- 
der the ministry of the apostles? We read 
in Acts xix. 1-5: "And it came to pass that 
while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having 
passed through the upper coasts came to 
Ephesus; and finding certain disciples, he 
said unto them, Have you received the Holy 
Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto 
him, We have not so much as heard whether 
there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto 
them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And 
they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said 
Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism 
of repentance, saying unto the people that they 
should believe on him which should come after 
him; that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard 
this, they icere baptized in the name of the Lord 
Jesus." These people knew nothing about the 
gift of the Holy Ghost and the assurance of par- 
don. They had only been taught under John 
to repent, and they had engaged to receive 
Christ when he should be declared unto them. 
But beyond this they knew nothing. If John's 
baptism had been for the remission of sins, 
however — just as baptism now is aifirmed to 
be — they ought to have been better informed 
about the things of the kingdom. And besides, 
it would appear to be wholly unnecessary for 



DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 31 

Paul to require that baptism be administered 
to them in the name of Christ. A faithful 
performance of the condition one time would, 
it seems, be quite sufficient. One sees at a 
glance the difficulty — yea, the real inconsist- 
ency — of supposing that John did baptize the 
people that they might obtain the remission of 
their sins. Such a benefit was not conferred 
upon any of the multitude, for that was, in fact, 
not the reason that he baptized. 

The real object of John's baptism, like that 
of his ministry, is very clearly set forth in the 
Scriptures. Says Paul : "John verily baptized 
with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the 
people that they should believe on him which 
should come after him; that is, on Christ Jesus" 
The theme, the burden of John's ministry was 
repentance toward God and faith in our Lord 
Jesus Christ. All who took warning from his 
exhortation, and engaged to repent and accept 
Christ when he should be announced unto them, 
were baptized. As the ministry of John was 
a call to repentance, so his baptism is said to 
have been "unto repentance." Not, indeed, 
that it in anywise conferred repentance or the 
remission of sins; but it was the formal ratifi- 
cation of an agreement to repent and to believe 
on the Messiah. Baptism was in this instance 



32 THE TOKEN OF THE COVI\NANT. 

just what it is in every other — the sign and seal 
of an obligation. But the obligation assumed 
under John was to re-pent Baptism signified 
their consent and readiness to do that work by 
which "the way of the Lord would be made 
ready." If remission of sins was contemplated 
at all, as we certainly must admit, it was in a 
remote sense, and because remission of sins 
depended upon repentance as the preparatory 
work, and not upon baptism. "Baptism of re- 
pentance for remission of sins" does not mean 
that baptism itself submitted was for remis- 
sion — that is, that on that account remission 
was granted. We have seen how impossible 
that was. But baptism was the exponent, the 
representative of repentance, because it was by 
this means that the obligation of repentance 
was formally assumed. Repentance was the su- 
preme duty of the hour, and every one was ex- 
horted to "bring forth fruits meet for repent- 
ance." Repentance was the assurance of the 
divine favor, and not baptism. 

Another text very confidently relied upon to 
prove the doctrine is Mark xvi. 16: "He that 
believeth and is baptized shall be saved." This, 
it is supposed, leaves no doubt as to the abso- 
lute necessity of baptism to salvation. Wheth- 
er it is necessary, however, as an instrument in 



DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 33 



our salvation or as a condition on the perform- 
ance of which we are to be saved, we are left 
to judge for ourselves. Some say one thing 
and some another; but where such vast is- 
sues are at stake the proof should be plain and 
positive, and not doubtful. That baptism is 
important we do not deny. On the contrary 
we insist that it is of divine appointment, and 
that the obligation is imperative. The real 
purpose of this text seems to be to enforce the 
obligation and to impose it upon every one. 
But we are not discussing the duty ox obligation 
of baptism, but the design of it, and whether 
it is a condition of pardon or not It might 
stand very closely related to our final salvation, 
and yet have nothing whatever to do with ei- 
ther the regeneration of our nature or the par- 
don of our sins. If it be imposed as a duty, 
then none dare neglect, much less despise 
it. To do so would be to incur the divine 
displeasure; but at the same time the perform- 
ance of that single duty is not to be attended 
at any time with the immediate blessing of 
pardon. 

It is evident that the salvation mentioned in 
the text is final salvation. " He that believeth 
and is baptized shall be saved" — not is saved al- 
ready, as if remission of sins were meant. The 
3 



34 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

word is antithetical to damned: "He that be- 
lieveth not shall be damned'" — that is, in the 
world to come. " He that believeth not is con- 
demned already," though not already damned 
in a final sense. The obligation both to be- 
lieve and to be baptized is made imperative, 
but it does not follow necessarily that baptism 
secures in any way the remission of sins, for , 
the administration of the ordinance may either 
precede or succeed the pardon of sins accord- 
ing as other conditions are performed. The 
requirement is that we be baptized, no matter 
whether it be antecedent to pardon or not. 
Circumstances must determine. So we see 
that this text sheds no light on the relative po- 
sition of the Christian ordinance, or on the de- 
sign of it. It simply imposes the obligation 
to observe it —that is all. 

John iii. 5: "Except a man be born of water 
and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the king- 
dom of God." This is one of the strongholds 
of the doctrine in question. Few passages are 
relied on with greater assurance to prove it 
than this. It therefore deserves the more 
careful notice. Biblical critics are in doubt as 
to the meaning of the word water here. Some 
very learned commentators think that it does 
not relate to water baptism at all, but that it 



DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 35 

is wholly figurative. Others, however, think 
differently. I shall raise no question at present 
as to the meaning of the terms in the text, but 
will allow that to "be born of water " means to 
be baptized with it. Give the theory the ben- 
efit of every doubt, and even then it cannot be 
sustained. All that we ask is a fair and candid 
interpretation of the words according to estab- 
lished rules. 

In the analysis of this oft-repeated but 
much-abused text, there are several things to 
be noted that will aid mightily in a clear and 
definite understanding of it. 

First: "Except a man be born." The word 
man is generic here, and has no reference at all 
to sex. The original word, rendered " man," is 
Tis, which means "any one;" or, as we some- 
times say, " anybody." Except "any one," there- 
fore — man, woman, child, no matter who — be 
born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot en- 
ter into the kingdom of God. While this is 
quite agreeable to the views of those who be- 
lieve in baptismal regeneration, it proves far 
too much for our immersion brethren, for it 
proves that baptism must necessarily be admin- 
istered in order to salvation at all; it must ap- 
ply to all alike, young as well as old. But this 
of course will include infants, and that is 



36 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 



enough to spoil the very best of argument with 
some folks. Still we must abide by the text. 

Second: "Be born of water and of the Spirit." 
This gives us some little idea of the meaning of 
baptism. It is a birth, though the word birth is 
used in a figurative sense : it denotes state, con- 
dition, manner of life, and not specific action. 
Allowing, then, that to be "born of water" 
means to be baptized with it, it follows neces- 
sarily that to be "born of the Spirit " means to 
be baptized with it. What is said of one of 
these things is said also of the other. If one 
means water baptism, the other must mean 
Spirit baptism. This is a great gain in the dis- 
cussion of the text, for we now know what the 
birth of the Spirit means. It means to be bap- 
tized — that is, cleansed, purified, regenerated 
by the Holy Spirit. The idea, then, is that ex- 
cept a man be baptized with water and regen- 
erated by the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into 
the kingdom of heaven. 

Third: These two things are not synonymous. 
Water baptism is not spiritual baptism. They 
are as distinct as can be. The one is outward, 
physical, and from below; the other is inward, 
spiritual, and from above, and is the work of 
the Holy Spirit himself, securing as by a new 
birth an entrance into another life. 



DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 37 

Fourth: Neither are they synchronous. 
They do not necessarily take place at the same 
time. True enough, an individual may receive 
the baptism of the Spirit at the very moment 
when water baptism is conferred, but it is not 
because there is any necessary or immediate 
relation between them. Ritual baptism some- 
times precedes and sometimes it succeeds the 
blessing of pardon and the gift of the Holy 
Ghost. Simon, the sorcerer, who is mentioned 
in Acts viii., was baptized, but it was soon dis- 
covered that his "heart was not right in the 
sight of God," and that he w r as in the "gall of 
bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity." His 
baptism neither secured the pardon of his sins 
nor his spiritual regeneration. 

And then again, ritual baptism may succeed 
the baptism of the Holy Ghost, as we see in 
the case of Cornelius and his friends, reported 
in Acts x. : " While Peter yet spake these words, 
the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the 
word. . . . Then answered Peter, Can any 
man forbid water that these should not be bap- 
tized, which have received the Holy Ghost as icell as 
ire? And he commanded them to be baptized 
in the name of the Lord." It is a great mis- 
take to suppose that spiritual regeneration is a 
necessary qualification for baptism. Baptism 



38 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

in this instance followed the gift of the Holy 
Spirit, which was graciously poured out to the 
joy and ecstasy of those that believed. When 
one is a devout seeker of salvation and is will- 
ing to consecrate himself to the service of God, 
he is ready to be baptized, although he may 
not yet have realized the assurance of pardon. 
It is also true that when the heart lays hold of 
God by faith in Christ Jesus the witness of 
the Spirit is not delayed for lack of water bap- 
tism; for being justified freely by faith we 
" have peace with God through our Lord Jesus 
Christ." But if the Holy Ghost can be grant- 
ed and people converted, saved, and indeed 
filled with a spirit of rejoicing before they are 
baptized at all, as we have shown, how can bap- 
tism be "for the remission of sins?" 

As water baptism and Spirit baptism, then, 
are distinct, separate, and independent of each 
other, it is hardly necessary to add, 

Fifth: That one cannot be in order to the 
other. The question under treatment is that 
baptism is either the instrument that effects our 
spiritual regeneration, or is in some way the 
condition of the pardon of sins. In the analy- 
sis given above, this I have abundantly shown 
to be false. No such idea is contained in this 
text. It is simply stated that except these 



DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 39 

things occur — that one "be born of water and 
of the Spirit — he cannot enter into the kingdom 
of heaven." Their relative order and their 
dependence are not defined, except that they 
are made independent. 

Sixth: In the last place, I beg to note that 
both water baptism and the baptism of the 
Holy Spirit, taken together, are not to be con, 
sidered in any sense the condition of pardon 
or for the remission of sins. " Except a man 
be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot 
enter into the kingdom of heaven." Kingdom 
of heaven does not mean the specific blessing 
of pardon. If it be so construed, and water 
baptism be made the condition of it, then the 
birth of the spirit is the condition of it too, 
for they are both essential prerequisites. But 
any one can See at a glance that it would be 
absurd to regenerate one and cleanse him from 
the guilt of sin while the condemnation of it 
yet remained. To such an extreme are we 
driven by the unscriptural and unphilosoph- 
ical interpretation put upon this text. Jesus 
meant to teach no such doctrine. 

The fallacy is in assuming that the words 
"kingdom of God" mean the same thing as 
justification or the pardon of sins. " Kingdom 
of heaven " is not to be limited to that or any 



40 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

Other specific benefit. It includes all the full- 
ness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ. 

The word " kingdom " denotes a certain form 
of government — a government ruled by a king. 
In the New Testament the word is of fre- 
quent use, and carries the idea of authority 
and dominion. When John announced that 
the H kingdom of heaven was at hand," he 
meant that the administration of Jesus Christ 
the Son of God was about to begin. The gov- 
ernment was upon his shoulder, and all au- 
thority was committed to him, and his person- 
al advent was at hand, when an administration 
.should be inaugurated that should culminate 
in the subjection of all things. This is, of 
course, a spiritual kingdom, whose dominion is 
over the minds and hearts of men. It is set 
for the regulation of morals and not civil rights. 
Such is the character of the kingdom of heaven. 
Every kingdom, or government, affords at least 
two great advantages. First, the favor and 
protection of the sovereign; and second, the 
esteem and fellowship of all fellow-citizens or 
subjects of the same kingdom. Nothing more 
is intended by any government. 

Now if we will view the kingdom of God in 
this light — which is evidently the true light — 
we shall be able in a moment to see how it is 



DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 41 

and why it is that one must be " born of water 
and of the Spirit" in order to inherit every ad- 
vantage of the kingdom of heaven. 

The birth of the Spirit, or spiritual regener- 
ation, brings one into vital relations to Christ, 
who is the head of all things. This implies, of 
course, submission to his authority and perfect 
obedience to his will; and all who are thus in 
communion with him are the constant subjects 
of his love and favor. Water baptism is a sym- 
bol of this new life, and although it confers no 
grace, it is nevertheless an initiation into the 
favor and friendship— or perhaps I ought to 
say fellowship — of ail loyal subjects of Christ's 
kingdom, being, as it is, the sign or profession 
of our submission to his authority. It is in 
some measure a mark of distinction among be- 
lievers and a pledge of obedience to Christ. 
Baptism is here, as in the commission given 
by Mark, made obligation/, but it is not appointed 
to serve as a condition of pardon. It is some- 
times called the sign and seal of the covenant 
of grace; but it is not because it seals to us nec- 
essarily the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, or 
is a sign that we are already the subjects of re- 
generative grace. Its office is to signify our 
willing obedience to Christ; and it is the for- 
mal means by which we ourselves sign or seal — 



42 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 



that is, ratify and confirm — the covenant of faith 
and obedience. It thus becomes oxa formal 
initiation into the "kingdom of God." Such, 
then, is the work of the Holy .Spirit in us and 
such the office of baptism that both are essen- 
tial, each in its place, so that no one can be said 
to participate fully in the kingdom of heaven 
who is not born of " water and of the Spirit." 
Take these words of Jesus in their true mean- 
ing and in their true relations, and this passage 
gives no countenance whatever either to the 
doctrine of baptismal regeneration or that of 
baptism for the remission of sins. 



CHAPTER IV. 

Examination of Scripture Texts (Continued) : Acts 
ii. 38; 1 Pet. hi. 20; Kom. vi. 1-4; Titus hi. 5. 



Acts ii. 38: " Repent, and be baptized every one 
of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the re- 
mission of sins." 

This is confessedly the stronghold of the 
doctrine of baptism for the remission of sins. 
No other passage in the New Testament is so 
frequently quoted and so confidently relied 
upon to sustain the dogma as this, xlnd it is 
admitted that there is some show of support 
for the theory in a cursory view of the text. 
" Repent," says the apostle, " and be baptized 
for the remission of sins." This looks as if 
remission was made to depend on baptism as 
one of the conditions at least. But we are not 
to be satisfied with a superficial view of things. 
Nothing short of absolute truth should be our 
aim. 

That baptism is in some way related to the 
remission of sins is no doubt true. Let us in- 
quire, then, what that relation is. This is de- 
noted by the preposition "for," which shows 
the relation between repentance and baptism 

(43) 



44 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

on the one hand, and remission of sins on the 
other. What, then, does "for the remission 
of sins" mean? Some expositors think that 
" for " here means in consideration of, in con- 
sequence of, or it may be on account of. Ac- 
cording to this view, we are to be baptized in 
consequence of the remission of sins, or on ac- 
count of that fact. This is hardly a just inter- 
pretation, for it is exposed to serious difficul- 
ties. Whatever "for" means, it must denote 
the relation of repentance as well as baptism. 
And if w r e should be baptized in consequence 
of the remission of sins, we should have also 
to repent in consequence of it. But it will 
not do to say, " Repent, on account of the re- 
mission of your sins." Repentance necessari- 
ly precedes remission, being preparatory to it. 

We can perhaps form some idea of the real 
meaning and force of this little word "for" 
(Greek, eis) in this connection, and the relation 
that it determines, by making some inquiry 
into the relation of repentance to the pardon of 
sins. 

Repentance is no doubt for remission in some 
sense. "Repent, and be converted, that your 
sins may be blotted out." This reformatory 
work must precede remission, of course, and is 
preparatory to it. But repentance, important 



DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 45 

as it is, cannot be said to be the essential 
condition of salvation. It looks to, contem- 
plates, the remission of sin^, but it is altogeth- 
er a preparatory process, and not something to 
be done as a condition that shall invariably se- 
cure the end, or on account of which pardon 
is granted. It implies contrition and reforma- 
tion; but these may exist in complete measure 
and yet no remission of sins be obtained, for 
the reason that forgiveness depends entirely on 
faith in Jesus Christ, trust in him. If it be said 
that there can be no saving faith without re- 
pentance, I reply that that is true; still it is 
faith, and not repentance, that is accounted to 
us for righteousness. Repentance is preparato- 
ry, and in that sense is somewhat conditional 
because precedent to remission of sins; but it 
cannot be esteemed a condition of salvation in 
the sense that trust in Christ is, for then once 
perf ormed the pardon of sins would inevitably 
follow. 

The preposition which is translated "for" 
would be much better rendered in this place 
"unto." This is really the meaning of it. 
"Be baptized unto the remission of sins," and 
not "for" the remission of sins. The truth of 
this will be realized in a moment, if we take a 
parallel passage: "I indeed baptize you unto 



46 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

repentance; " or, if we should translate as above, 
"for repentance." Here we have the same 
preposition (eis) governing the same case, and 
indeed employed to denote the relation of bap- 
tism. In other words, it is used to denote the 
object or design of baptism as John adminis- 
tered it. Now that is precisely what we are 
inquiring into. What is it to be baptized " for " 
a thing, or "unto" a thing? As it relates to 
repentance, we are sure that it is not because 
of repentance already performed that one is 
said to be baptized unto it, nor in order to the 
obtaining of repentance, nor in consequence of 
it; much less was it because baptism conferred 
repentance, or in any way necessarily secured 
it, that John baptized " unto " it. This the rite 
could never do. And yet John did baptize 
" unto repentance." How, then, did John's bap- 
tism relate to repentance? Why, in this: it 
was the rite, or ceremony, by which the obliga- 
tion involved in repentance was assumed. Ev- 
ery one w T ho engaged to do what John preached 
— that is, to repent — ratified the engagement by 
submitting to baptism at his hands. He is 
therefore said to have baptized them " unto re- 
pentance;" that is, he consecrated them to that 
performance. All this seems plain and easy. 
The meaning of "unto" we fully comprehend. 



DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 47 

Well, this is precisely the meaning of the prep- 
osition in the text under consideration, and 
that denotes the relation of baptism to the re- 
mission of sins. The preposition is the same, 
though translated differently When it is 
said, "Be baptized unto the remission of sins," 
we are not to understand that it is in conse- 
quence of remission already past, nor that it 
obtains remission, or in anywise secures the 
pardon of sins on account of its performance; 
but that it is that ritual performance by which 
the obligation imposed in the covenant of mer- 
cy is formally assumed. It is an act of conse- 
cration whereby one accepts the offers of mer- 
cy. But baptism is not the real consecration 
of the heart and life necessarily, but the 
formal consecration of one's self to God. It is 
symbolical of inward purification, and contem- 
plates a new life, and is therefore " unto the 
remission of sins." That is the thing contem- 
plated when we are baptized, but it is not bap- 
tism itself that secures it. That this is true is 
apparent from the qualifying words, " Be bap- 
tized in the name of Jesas Christ for remission" 
— which means, necessarily, faith or trust in 
that name. To be baptized in the name of one 
means that it be done relying upon that name. 
Baptism is the formal expression of the trust 



48 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

that is exercised in the name, but it is not 
baptism that approves, but trust That this is 
the correct interpretation of the text let us ob- 
serve that this same apostle, Peter, who spoke 
these words, is author of two Epistles, in neither 
of which is it intimated that baptism is for the 
remission of sins. He mentioned the word 
but once in these writings, and then was care,, 
ful to state that "it is not the putting away 
of the filth oi the flesh, but the answer of a 
good conscience toward God." If baptism 
had been as necessary to our salvation as some 
suppose and argue, the apostle no doubt would 
have placed the question beyond dispute in 
these Epistles. He was very explicit in anothr 
er way, however. Speaking of faith, he says: 
"Whom having not seen ye, love; in whom, 
though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye re- 
joice with joy unspeakable and full of glory: 
receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation 
of your souls" Here he gives great prominence 
to faith, the end of which he declares to be 
the salvation of the soul. Surely if baptism 
ministered to the salvation of the soul, it was 
important to say so. 

It is a correct rule of interpretation that 
when the meaning of an author is obscure or 
at all doubtful in any place, it may be inter- 



DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 49 

preted in the light of other utterances of his 
on the same subject put forth at other times 
and in other places. Following this rule, let 
us interpret the expression of Peter on the 
day of Pentecost, respecting baptism for the re- 
mission of sins, by what he himself states on 
other occasions. 

It will be remembered that there arose a 
question in the Church about the privileges of 
the Gentiles in the kingdom of God. Where- 
upon the apostles and elders assembled in con- 
ference at Jerusalem "for to consider of this 
matter." (Actsxv.6.) At that meeting Peter w r as 
present, " and when there had been much dis- 
puting, he rose up, and said unto them, Men and 
brethren, ye know how that a good w r hile ago 
God made choice among us, that the Gentiles 
by my mouth should hear the word of the gos- 
pel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the 
hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy 
Ghost, even as he did unto us; and put no differ- 
eyice between as and them, purifying their hearts by 
faith" Peter evidently referred to the con- 
version of Cornelius and his friends, which 
took place under his ministry. This event, he 
says, satisfied him that God dealt with the 
Gentiles as with the Jews. He gave them the 
Holy Ghost — by which is meant the witness of 
4 



50 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

the Spirit: "He bare them witness;" and he 
purified their hearts also — delivered them from 
the guilt and condemnation of sin. Now this 
was done, says the apostle, "by faith." If we 
turn and read the account reported in the Acts 
of the Apostles, we shall see that it was indeed 
"by faith," and that baptism had nothing to 
do in securing the purification of their hearts 
or the gift of the Holy Spirit, Their baptism 
succeeded the witness of the Spirit unto them, 
which of course was given to testify of their 
acceptance before God. Now let it be observed 
that " he put no difference between them and us, 
purifying their hearts by faith," That is, he 
put no difference between the Gentiles and the 
Jews, but purified the hearts of all alike God 
has but one plan by which to forgive men and 
to save them. But if he purified the hearts of 
these Gentiles by faith, and gave them the wit- 
ness of the Spirit without baptism, and re- 
quired the Jews on the day of Pentecost, or at 
any other time, to submit to baptism in order 
to pardon, then there was a difference. But 
the apostle says there was no difference. How, 
then, can we reconcile his language? "Why, in 
this: the expression baptism "for remission of 
sins " is not to be understood at all as a condi- 
tion of pardon. Here we see the meaning of 



DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 51 

Peter as to the relation of faith to salvation; 
and in the light of this we should interpret all 
his utterances on this subject. 

I have given considerable space to the discus- 
sion of this text, because it is the strong reliance 
of the doctrine in question . I think I have given 
the true scriptural meaning of the passage. Of 
this, however, I shall leave the reader to judge. 

It is appropriate just here to inquire into the 
meaning of that single passage in the Epistle 
of Peter that mentions baptism — 1 Peter iii. 
21: " The like figure whereunto even baptism 
doth also now save us (not the putting away of 
the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good 
conscience toward God)." None but those who 
believe strictly in baptismal regeneration can 
suppose for a moment that the ordinance of 
baptism can save us in any efficient sense. The 
advocates of the theory that baptism is a con- 
dition of pardon merely, reject the idea that 
it has any saving power or quality. This text, 
therefore, if taken in the sense usually put upon 
it, proves too much for the most ardent sup- 
porter of the doctrine; for it would prove that 
baptism actually saves us. This, however, it 
cannot do; and it was evidently the intention 
of the apostle to guard against that impression, 
hence the qualifying words inserted by way of 



52 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

parenthesis — "not the putting away of the filth 
of the flesh." Whatever baptism may do, this 
one thing it cannot do: it cannot put away the 
filth of .the flesh. By "filth of the 56811" we 
are not to understand such impurities as may 
soil the surface of the body, and that may be 
removed by washing. Any one would know 
that baptism was not intended to put away that, 
or to serve the purpose of an ordinary bath. 
"Filth of the flesh" means the sin, the guilt, 
the corruption of the carnal nature. The works 
of the flesh, says Paul, are these: "Adultery, 
fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idola- 
try, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations," 
etc. And in 2 Cor. vii. 1 he says, "Let us 
cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh 
and spirit" which defines very clearly what 
filth of the flesh means. Baptism, says Pe- 
ter, is "not the putting away of the filth of 
the flesh." If it is not, then it can save 
us from no moral pollution whatever. Yet 
this is frequently quoted and applied to the 
support of the doctrine in question, as if it were 
proof positive; and many careless readers so 
accept it. 

What, then, is the meaning? The text itself 
declares the real object of the ordinance: "It 
is the answer of a good conscience toward God." 



DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 



The meaning of this is not very plain. All ac- 
knowledge considerable obscurity here because 
the word "answer" is of doubtful import. 
The original word, here translated "answer," 
ordinarily means an inquiry, an interrogation. 
In rare instances it means a "profession." It 
was this, perhaps, that induced the present 
translation. Taken in this sense, baptism 
means the profession that we make before God. 
It is the response, the expression of conscience 
to the demand made upon it in requiring obe- 
dience to baptism. If baptism be considered 
an interrogation, the interrogatory is, "Do you 
accept Christ as the Saviour? " This embodies 
all. In it is the formal means by which the con- 
science makes its response of obedience to God. 
We may never be able to discern the real ben- 
efit accruing to us in obedience to this rite, yet 
the conscience of every believer readily sub- 
mits to the demand upon it, because it is a 
positive commandment. Hence it is the an- 
swer, or profession, of a good conscience toward 
God. 

If we compare baptism, which is the anti- 
type — or, as it is rendered in the text, "like fig- 
ure" — with the flood which was the type, Ave 
can perhaps obtain some more definite idea of 
the text. It is said that eight souls were saved 



54 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

by water. These were Noah and his family. 
This is employed as a figure, or type, to repre- 
sent the advantage that baptism is to us. As 
the flood was instrumental in saving Noah and 
his family, so baptism also saves us. Now in 
what sense were those eight souls saved by 
water? It is in this that the likeness must be 
found. The salvation secured to Noah and his 
family by the flood is a true type of the way in 
which baptism saves us. Those eight persons 
were not saved from the guilt and power of sin 
by the waters of the deluge. Noah himself had 
been a preacher of righteousness for many years 
before the flood came. It was his faith in 
God's word concerning the flood, uttered to him 
years and years before their fulfillment, that 
justified him, and that moved him by fear to 
the building of an ark to the saving of him- 
self and his house. The ark floated on the 
water, and those eight persons escaped the gen- 
eral doom. This became the occasion of de- 
claring Noah's faith and of demonstrating his 
acceptance in the sight of God. Thus, says 
Paul, " he condemned the world, and became 
heir of the righteousness which is by faith." ( Heb. 
xi. 7.) 

In this sense, baptism may also save us. It 
is the visible means of expressing our faith, 



DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 



and our acceptance of Christ, and, being a will- 
ing obedience to him, is in a very lively manner 
the answer of a good conscience toward God. 
But it has no more power to save from the 
guilt and power of sin than had the waters of 
the flood to wash away the sins of the old 
world. 

Rom. vi. 3, 4: "Know ye not that so many of 
us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were 
baptized into his death? Therefore we are 
buried with him by baptism into death; that 
like as Christ was raised up from the dead by 
the glory of the Father, even so we also should 
walk in newness of life." I have already 
given a somewhat extended explanation of 
this scripture in another place. (See page 
11.) A few additional remarks, however, 
are necessary here to show the meaning of 
"baptized into Jesus Christ," and "into his 
death." 

Very many commentators are of the opinion 
that water baptism is not alluded to at all in 
this passage. They think that spiritual bap- 
tism is meant, and in proof of it appeal to 1 
Cor. xii. 13: "For by one spirit are we all bap- 
tized into one body," etc. But waiving all this, 
let us grant that the word has reference to the 
Christian ordinance, and thus give the doctrine 



56 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

of baptism for remission of sins every possible 
advantage. I think that even then we shall 
find that it obtains little or no support from 
this text. And if it fails here, it fails every- 
where. 

It seems that baptism is mentioned in this 
connection as the instrument that does certain 
things for us. What are these things? First, 
we are baptized into Jesus Christ. Second, 
we are baptized into his death. Third, we 
are buried with him by baptism into death. 
These are strong utterances, and are supposed 
to afford powerful proof in favor of the extreme 
view already stated. If the words be taken in 
the construction put upon them, however, and 
water baptism be regarded as the efficient in- 
strument in doing all that is here said to be 
done for us, then it does far more than any one 
claims for it, except it be a most ultra baptis- 
mal regenerationist. Those who hold that the 
ordinance is a condition of pardon only, the 
test of our faith, do not claim that it saves us, 
or puts any one into vital relation to Christ, or 
insures to any the saving power and virtue of 
his death. This they stoutly deny. And yet 
these words are frequently quoted, and applied 
without explanation to the support of the the- 
ory. Taken, then, in its most literal sense, the 



DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 57 

text proves too much, for it says we are bap- 
tized into Christ. Not considering the mean- 
ing and force of certain words and phrases, the 
careless reader falls very naturally into mis- 
take in attempting to construe the language of 
the apostle here. The words "into Jesus 
Christ" and "into his death" are a peculiar 
form of expression. True they denote the de- 
sign and purpose of baptism, but to under- 
stand the office of baptism we must know the 
meaning of the words. "Into Jesus Christ" is 
an unfortunate translation, if we accept the 
meaning of the preposition in its present use. 
The correct and proper rendering of the prep- 
osition (eis) is no doubt " unto: " baptized " unto 
Jesus Christ," baptized "unto his death." 
This does not signify at all that any vital re- 
lation to Christ, or any spiritual interest in his 
death, is secure to any by ritual baptism — that 
is, that we are put into him. Baptism was not 
appointed to do that sort of thing. The apos- 
tles were commissioned to baptize people " unto 
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
the Holy Ghost." And this expression in Ro- 
mans means just the doing of that thing — "bap- 
tized unto Jesus Christ." Baptism is a dedica- 
tory rite, and those who receive it are dedicated 
or consecrated unto Christ Jesus. Yea, more: 



58 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

they are consecrated unto his death, and unto 
newness of life. It means nothing more than 
that we are formally set apart unto God, and 
unto obedience to him. Also, this consecration 
implies newness of life; that is the real object. 
We are just as truly to rise to newness of life 
as Christ was raised from the dead by the 
glory of the Father. But the formal act of 
consecration, which is baptism, cannot by any 
means secure to us the life of Jesus Christ and 
the virtue of his death. It is the real conse- 
cration of the soul and body and life to him 
that brings this holy alliance. This is effected 
when the soul trusts him and accepts him as 
the only Saviour. 

The object here is to show that none may 
continue in sin who have confessed faith in 
Christ. This some of them seem to have for- 
gotten — if, indeed, they had ever known it. 
"Know ye not that so many of us as were bap- 
tized unto Jesus Christ were baptized unto his 
death ? " As much as to say that we w 7 ere there- 
by obligated to die unto this w r orld and all its car- 
nal interests as truly as he died unto it, that 
sin might no longer have dominion over us, 
but that we might live another and a higher 
and a better life just as truly as he was raised 
from the dead by the glory of the Father. 



DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 59 

Now if baptism had been the instrument of 
their salvation from sin, or the condition of 
their pardon, they would certainly have known 
that none might continue in sin who had been 
thus delivered from it. They were reminded 
that being baptized unto Christ implied new- 
ness of life and death to sin, though it did not 
by any means impart that life or afford deliv- 
erance from the thralldom of sin. 

But to make it more evident if possible, the 
■whole purpose of our consecration to God is 
present here as a life — a life, too, as real, as 
genuine as the reviving of Jesus Christ from 
the dead. If it be a life, then, it is secured to 
us, or rather planted in us, by the Holy Spirit, 
who is the only source of life. "And you hath 
he quickened who were dead in trespasses and 
in sins." "It is the Spirit that quickeneth." 
Nothing else can give life. We may be form- 
ally and solemnly consecrated unto Jesus 
Christ and the power of his resurrection by the 
ordinance of baptism, but our entering upon a 
life is after the manner of his resurrection by 
the glory or power of the Spirit of God. So 
.far, then, from teaching that baptism is the in- 
strument of our deliverance from sin, this text 
teaches just the opposite. The supreme idea 
is far above a ritualistic service. It means de- 



60 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

liverance from sin, and death to sin ever after- 
ward, and newness of life — life inward and 
outward, and in every way just as real to us as 
the resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord from 
the dead. 

There is one other passage of Scripture that 
I must examine before I dismiss this part of 
the subject. It is Titus iii. 5: "Not by works 
of righteousness which we have done, but ac- 
cording to his mercy he saved us, by the wash- 
ing of regeneration, and renewing of the 
Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly 
through Jesus Christ our Saviour." This is a 
notable passage in this controversy. " Wash- 
ing" is assumed to be water baptism, and 
the interpretation is that baptism itself is 
a bath, and that this baptismal washing some- 
how regenerates us — that we are saved by 
it. This is a great mistake, and, according to 
our view, very foreign to the meaning of the 
verse. 

Let us allow that the salvation spoken of is 
salvation from sin, and means a present and 
not a future salvation. We must observe, then, 
that the apostle defines both the procuring 
cause of this salvation and the instrumental 
or efficient cause of it. As to the procuring 
cause he says: " It is not by works of righteous- 



DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 61 

ness which we have done, but according to his 
mercy he saved us." Comment is hardly nec- 
essary. It is of pure unmerited favor that we 
are saved. % No works of righteousness done by 
us can in any way procure salvation. It is of 
mercy, hence cannot be of baptism, which is 
itself a work of righteousness. But the in- 
strumental or efficient cause of our salvation 
is supposed to be water baptism. The wash- 
ing, or bath of regeneration — as it is sometimes 
called — is said to do this for us. The bath, or 
laver, as said above, is interpreted to mean the 
Christian ordinance, and the idea is that we are 
saved by it. This I do not conceive to be the 
meaning of the language here at all. It is by 
no means certain that the word "washing" al- 
ludes to baptism in the most distant way. I 
am pretty sure that it does not. What the 
apostle means to affirm is that we are saved by 
regeneration — that is, regeneration itself is a 
washing. Not a basin, nor the act or process 
of washing such as baptism is, but the state of 
being cleansed — a purification. It is a result, 
then, accomplished in us; we are washed. Re- 
generation was a new word in the religious no- 
menclature. It meant a new creation, a new 
life. To make the meaning more definite if 
possible, the apostle employed a double exple- 



62 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

tive, and called it the " washing of regeneration" 
— just as if he had said, " He saves ns by regen- 
erating us, which regeneration is a washing." 
We are not to understand that the washing is 
one thing and the regeneration is another thing 
accomplished by it. Regeneration itself, when 
taken in a figurative sense, is a washing, be- 
cause it is a cleansing from the guilt and shame 
of sin. When the renewing of the Holy Ghost 
is mentioned, about the same thing is meant, 
but the expression is changed to accommodate 
it to our sense, and to give strength and em- 
phasis to the meaning. This means the re- 
newing effected, brought about, accomplished 
in us by the direct influence of the Holy 
Ghost. The obvious meaning, then, is that we 
are saved not on account of any works of right- 
eousness of our own put to our credit, but by 
being regenerated, which regeneration is a 
washing; and that the efficient instrument, or 
agent, in our salvation is the Holy Ghost, which 
being poured out upon us — or, as the expression 
is, "shed upon us abundantly" — renews the in- 
ner nature, washing away all the guilt of for- 
mer transgressions. Regeneration, then, is ef- 
fected by the Holy Spirit, whose work is also 
called a "renewing." And inasmuch as this 
gracious influence is compared to a copious 



DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 63 

shower which is shed upon us abundantly, the 
effect is very properly called a washing, or the 
laver, of purification. Hence we are saved by 
the washing of regeneration and the renewing 
of the Holy Ghost. The sole instrument, or 
agent, is the Holy Spirit, who alone has power 
to save. 

But admitting (which I do not) that the 
washing referred to is ritual baptism, even 
then the theory of baptism for the remission 
of sins gains no support from this passage, for 
the doctrine does not claim that baptism is 
either the procuring or the instrumental cause 
of salvation. It only claims that it is in some 
way the conditional cause. But this is entirely 
out of the question, for the text most explicitly 
states that it is "not by works of righteousness 
that tee have done, but according to his mercy 
he saves us." Which means that so far as the 
means of securing our salvation are concerned, 
it is of the free, unmerited grace of God. In 
Ephesians ii. 8, when the apostle says that 
"by grace are ye saved through faith," lest 
some one might attach some merit to the mere 
act of believing, he adds, " and that not of your- 
selves: it is the gift of God." 

I have only to express my surprise that so 
many have arrayed this text of Scripture in the 



64 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

defense of the unscriptural doctrine of baptis- 
mal regeneration, while the plain meaning 
and the grammatical construction are evidently 
against any such interpretation. 



CHAPTER V. 

Justification by Faith Only. 



We might rest satisfied with the results of the 
inquiry made thus far, having shown that none of 
the scriptures usually supposed to do so really 
teach that salvation is contingent upon baptism. 
But to make assurance doubly sure, I shall 
now proceed to show that justification, or par- 
don, or the remission of sins — all of which mean 
the same thing — is offered on another and en- 
tirely different condition: that is, faith in our 
Lord Jesus Christ. If this be true, then the 
doctrine under discussion cannot be true; for 
it is not possible that the pardon of sins can 
depend upon two conditions that are unlike 
and different in all respects. We should re- 
member that God has but one plan by which 
he justifies or saves men. He has never had 
but one plan. From time immemorial the 
system of redemption has been the same. 
There have been changes in the ritual of re- 
ligion, and in the forms of worship, etc., but all 
the essential principles of religion are eternal. 
No change has occurred or ever will occur in 
these. Salvation is the supreme object, and 
5 (65) 



66 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

salvation implies pardon, deliverance from sin, 
and the conditions on which eternal life is to be 
obtained. All these are among the essential 
principles of religion, and are not affected by 
time or change. God justifies people now just 
as he did when justification was first offered, 
and just as he will so long as mercy continues. 
We may expect no amendment to the plan of 
salvation. 1 repeat, then, that the one simple 
condition on which God has ever been pleased 
to offer pardon to guilty mortals is faith in him 
and his Son Jesus Christ. The doctrine of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, as ex- 
pressed in her Ninth Article is: "We are ac- 
counted righteous before God, only for the 
merit of our Lord and'Saviour Jesus Christ by 
faith, and not for our own works or deservings. 
Wherefore that we are justified by faith only is 
a most wholesome doctrine and very full of 
comfort." This statement of a great doctrine I 
heartily indorse, because I regard it to be true 
and in strict accordance with the Holy Script- 
ures. Luther called it the distinguishing test of 
a standing or a falling Church. All history pro- 
claims that the Church has prospered and souls 
have been saved in proportion as the doctrine 
of justification by faith has been exalted and 
preached. 



DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 67 

A multitude of texts might be arrayed, but 
need not be, to prove that we are justified 
by faith only. One plain, emphatic utter- 
ance of the Bible is as good as a thousand. 
And where we have a plain utterance we may 
not expect it to be contradicted anywhere else. 
The Scriptures are in accord with themselves, 
the first revelation of the will of God concern- 
ing the terms on which he would justify men 
is recorded in the book of Genesis; and it was 
made to Abraham. God revealed to Abraham 
the covenant of mercy which contained the con- 
ditions on which all men might obtain his fa- 
vor and be saved. This the apostle Paul calls 
the "gospel which was preached unto Abra- 
ham." Abraham himself, who received the 
divine communication, was justified freely ac- 
cording to the provisions of the plan, and was 
made the representative of the doctrine to all 
the families of the earth. 

In pursuit of the argument, therefore, I shall 
point out, first, the manner of Abraham's justi- 
fication; and, secondly, shall show that every 
other man is to be justified on the same condi- 
tion that Abraham was. In doing this, I sim- 
ply adopt the line of argument pursued by the 
apostle Paul, who was the great champion of 
the doctrine of justification by faith only. 



68 THE TOKEN OF TTT2 COVENANT. 



How, then, was Abraham justified — that is, on 
what condition? What did he do, if any thing, 
to obtain the forgiveness of his sins? In Rom. 
iv. 2, 3, we read: "For if Abraham was justified 
by works, he hath whereof to glory ; but not be- 
fore God. For what saith the Scripture? 
Abraham believed God, and it [his faith] was 
counted unto him for righteousness." This is 
a quotation from Genesis xv. 6, where the 
transaction of Abraham's justification is re- 
corded. If the reader will turn and read the 
account, he will find that God promised a cer- 
tain thing to Abraham which was against all 
human possibility. But Abraham's confidence 
in God's willingness and ability to perform it 
was so great that on this account God justified 
him — that is, imputed his faith to him for right- 
eousness. 

In Rom. iv. 18-22, we have a striking descrip- 
tion of Abraham's very exalted trust: "Who 
against hope believed in hope, that he might 
become the father of many nations. . . And 
being not weak in faith, he considered not his 
own body now dead, when he was about a hun- 
dred years old, neither yet the deadness of 
Sarah's womb: he staggered not at the prom- 
ise of God through unbelief; but was strong in 
faith, giving glory to God; and being fully per- 



DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 69 

suaded, that what he had promised he was able 
also to perform. And therefore it teas imputed to 
him for righteousness." 

It is very clear, then, that Abraham was j us- 
tified by faith only. There is nothing else to 
which his justification can be attributed, for 
he had done nothing else to secure it. And 
lest some one might come to attach some merit 
or value to the circumcision of Abraham, and 
suppose that it had something to do with his 
justification, the apostle presents the fact that 
Abraham's faith was imputed to him for right- 
eousness, and he was justified by it freely, be- 
fore his circumcision took place. (Rom. iv. 
10.) Thus excluding all idea that circumcision 
had any thing whatever to do with the justifica- 
tion of the patriarch. The argument, then, is 
conclusive that Abraham was justified by faith 
onhj; for he had no merit, and did nothing 
whatever but believe in order to secure his jus- 
tification, and therefore it was "imputed to him 
for righteousness." 

I am aware that there is in the Epistle of 
James a statement that seems to be irreconcila- 
ble with this. He says ( chap. ii. 21-24) : " Was 
not Abraham our father justified by works when 
he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 
.... Ye see then how that by works a man 



70 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

is justified, and not by faith only." This pas- 
sage is often quoted in proof that a man is not 
justified by faith only. And there is a seem- 
ing conflict between this and the teaching of 
Paul on the subject; so much so that Luther 
came well-nigh rejecting the Epistle of James 
altogether. Other good men, too, have stag- 
gered at this utterance. But there is no real 
conflict between the teaching of these two 
apostles. James, it must be noted, speaks of 
the trial of Abraham's faith when he offered 
his son Isaac on the altar. It is thought that 
Isaac was not far from twenty or twenty-five 
years of age at the time. But Paul speaks of 
the faith of Abraham in God's word — before 
Isaac was bom, and ivhen he teas promised unto 
him. Being about a hundred years old, and 
Sarah being about ninety and without posterity, 
when God promised them a son, though it was 
contrary to nature, and a natural impossibility, 
yet Abraham believed God, " in hope against 
hope;" and by that faith he was justified — that 
is, pardoned — for it was "imputed to him for 
righteousness." Now what took place when he 
offered Isaac on the altar could not affect, or in 
any way invalidate, his justification which oc- 
curred years before. In the sense of being 
tried, proved, vindicated, he was justified by 



DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 71 

works which were the natural fruits of his 
faith. In the sense of being pardoned he was 
justified by faith only. James himself says 
(chap, ii., verse 23) that "the Scripture teas ful- 
filled which saith, Abraham believed God, and 
it was imputed unto him for righteousness.' ' 
These apostles, then, are not at variance. The 
faith that justifies must be a fruitful faith — one 
that leads to good works, and to all manner of 
sacrifices for God. But the blessedness of 
pardon is not withheld until good works do ap- 
pear, but is conferred at once on account of 
the character of the faith. 

The pardon or justification of Abraham is 
the one instance that illustrates the plan by 
which God proposes to justify all men. Every 
one is to be justified on the same terms and 
conditions that he was. From that day to this 
there has been no change. It is by grace 
through faith that we are saved. In proof of 
this, I quote Eom. iv. 23, 24, speaking of Abra- 
ham's justification by faith : " Now it teas not 
written for his sake alone, that it was imputed 
to him ; but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, 
if we believe on him that raised up Jesus Christ 
our Lord from the dead." Again, it is said in Gal. 
iii. 6-9: "Even as Abraham believed God, and it 
was accounted to him for righteousness. Know 



72 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

ye therefore that they wh ich are of faith, the same are 
the children of Abraham. And the Scripture, 
foreseeing that God would justify the heathen 
through faith, preached before the gospel unto 
Abraham.. . . So then, they which be of faith are 
blessed with faithful Abraham" These texts are 
sufficient. They show that the heathen, and in 
fact all men, are to be justified in the sight of 
God just as Abraham was, and that this bless- 
ing comes upon the whole race by virtue of 
God's promise to that effect. 

The statements of Paul are sufficient, being 
inspired of God to speak the truth; but in 
proof of the doctrine he makes an argument in 
his Epistle to the Galatians that puts the ques- 
tion beyond all shadow of doubt. He says 
(Gal. iii. 15-18): "Brethren, I speak after the 
manner of men. Though it be but a man's cov- 
enant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannul- 
led, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and 
his seed were the promises made. [The cove- 
bant was in the form of a promise.] He saith 
not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, 
And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, 
that the covenant, that was confirmed before of 
God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred 
and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it 
should make the promise of none effect. For if 



DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 73 



the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of 
promise." To get at the point we must take 
notice that salvation is offered to the world by 
promise. God made promise to Abraham that 
through him all the families of the earth 
should be blessed. The condition on which he 
determined to save vr&s faith only, and he en- 
tered into covenant with Abraham by which 
he agreed — so to speak — that every one who 
would accept him by faith should be freely justi- 
fied on that simple condition. This covenant, 
with its simple stipulations, was " confirmed be- 
fore of God in Christ." God himself swore to 
it by his own great and holy name. Abraham 
accepted it and was freely pardoned, his faith 
being "accounted unto him for righteousness." 
Now the apostle reminded those who were go- 
ing about to establish their own righteousness, 
or were seeking salvation by obedience to the 
law, that it could not be in the very nature of 
the case, because the whole plan of mercy was 
a covenant transaction. It is of the very nat- 
ure of a covenant, though it be but a man's, 
that if it once be confirmed no man can disan- 
nul or add thereto. The will of the original 
parties must be respected and their wish car- 
ried oat. Now this was precisely the case with 
the doctrine in hand. God had promised in 



74 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

covenant form that salvation should come to 
the Gentiles through faith. The law there- 
fore, which was enacted four hundred and thir- 
ty years afterward, could not disannul it, to 
make the promise of none effect. There could 
be no addition to the covenant. The law was 
not ordained to be a condition of justification, 
but to be a rule of life. And if the law, thus 
ordained so many years after, could not affect 
the covenant of mercy, neither can any oth- 
er enactment at any time after the confirma- 
tion of the covenant do it. It is not possible, 
by any means, to change or amend the essen- 
tial features of it. I speak reverently when I 
say that it was impossible for Jesus Christ 
himself to make water baptism or any thing 
else besides faith a condition of justification, 
inasmuch as it would be to add somewhat to 
a covenant which God had confirmed before. 
God cannot deny himself. 

It is therefore settled by the Scriptures that 
we are justified in the sense of pardon freely 
by grace through faith, as the only condition 
necessarily precedent. This being true, the doc- 
trine that baptism is for the remission of sins 
is untrue, and contrary to the teaching of the 
Bible; and those who think that baptism, ap- 
pointed nearly two thousand years after the 



DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 75 

covenant of redemption was confirmed, is now 
the condition of salvation, are greatly mistaken 
as to its design. 

I revert, then, to the original question, and 
ask, What is the design of Christian baptism? 
I answer that it is a ceremonial purification 
symbolical of spiritual purity. It is also a 
dedicatory rite by which we are formally con- 
secrated to God, and is the simple means by 
which we signify our acceptance of the cove- 
nant of grace. I beg to refer the reader, how- 
ever, to Part IL of this book, where this sub- 
ject is treated fully in connection with the 
" Subjects of Baptism.'' 



PART SECOND. 

SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 



CHAPTER !. 

The Question Stated— God's Covenant with Abra- 
ham Stated and Explained, and the Kelation of 
Children to it Established. 



Who are proper subjects of baptism? All 
admit that persons who have come to years of 
accountability, and do repent of their sins, and 
have faith in Christ, should be baptized. The 
Koman Catholic Church, the Greek Church, 
the Lutheran Church, the Church of England, 
all branches of the Presbyterian Church, Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, Protestant Episcopal 
Church — in fact, the whole of Christendom, ex- 
cept the various branches of the Baptist Church, 
including those familiarly know^n as Campbell- 
ites — believe also that infants are proper sub- 
jects of baptism. I shall now devote a few 
chapters to the investigation of this subject. 

In the beginning of this discussion it is im- 
portant to obtain a clear view of the question 
at issue. It should be remembered, then, that 
in the baptism of children the obligation is 
upon the parent or guardian, and not upon 
the child. It is not the duty of a child to be 
baptized, it is its privilege; and it is the duty 

(79) 



80 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

of the parent, or whoever is responsible for 
that child, to have it done. If this can be 
kept steadily in view, most, if not all, the diffi- 
culties that beset this subject will disappear. 

The main argument in favor of infant bap- 
tism has generally — in fact, nearly always — 
been deduced from the relation of children to 
the Church of God. It is said that when God 
organized his Church in the world he provided 
that children should be members of it, and 
thus entitled them to all the benefits and or- 
dinances of the Church. And as this regula- 
tion has never been repealed by divine au- 
thority unto this day, infants are still related 
to the Church, and in consequence are proper 
subjects of baptism. This argument, greatly 
elaborated by many writers, when properly de- 
fined and understood, is very good, and ac- 
cords with the Scriptures. But a good deal 
of explanation is necessary. The word Church 
is so indefinite that this statement of the argu- 
ment is open to continual objection. Church 
sometimes means a "house of worship," and 
sometimes a "congregation of people;" and 
then again it means "the general assembly u 
of believers. On account of this ambigui- 
ty there has been unceasing discussion re- 
specting the perpetuity of the visible Church 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 81 

from time immemorial. One man uses the 
word Church in one sense, and another uses it 
in quite a different sense. I prefer, therefore, 
in this discussion not to make any argument at 
all on the relation of children to the Church. 
Whether the Church be visible or invisible, 
or whether there has been but one Church, 
or more than one, does not affect the argu- 
ment as I am about to state it. I grant that 
there is a Church which is "the pillar and 
ground of the truth," and that believers and 
their children share in its blessings, and that 
all the world is to come to a knowledge of the 
truth through its agency. 

Say what you may about the Church and its 
essential unity, whether it be true or not, and 
the changes that have occurred under success- 
ive dispensations, there is this that we all 
allow: There is but one God, and one re- 
ligion, and the principles and statutes of this 
one religon have been the same and will re- 
main the same forever. Variations in forms 
of worship may be required by time, circum- 
stance, or national distinction, but these do 
not affect the essential principles of this one 
spiritual religion. They are as unchangeable 
as God himself, and as permanent as human 
nature. This religion which involves a reve- 
6 



82 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

lation of the will of God respecting the race, 
and the obligation to love, honor, and worship 
him, began to be revealed in the form of a cove- 
nanty or agreement. God made certain great 
and precious promises, on condition that man 
would assume and faithfully perform his duty 
as it might be revealed unto him. In other 
words, the religion of the Bible is covenant in 
its character. When an individual comes to 
God in actual service he enters into solemn 
covenant with him, and assumes an obligation 
to love and serve the Almighty fully. The 
consecration must be thorough. It involves 
all that one has. Himself as to his inner and 
outward life, his children, and in fact all his 
possessions, are placed upon the altar of sacri- 
fice. This is one of the essential principles of 
religion. God does not accept any one after 
an uncovenanted manner; nor does he accept 
any but a whole offering. It is upon this fun- 
damental and essential principle of religion 
itself that we rest the doctrine of infant bap- 
tism. It is part of the obligation of every one 
that enters into covenant with God to conse- 
crate his children to God and make them the 
subjects of careful religious culture. It is, 
therefore, from the covenant character of the 
Christian religion that we deduce our strong- 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 83 

est argument in favor of the baptism of chil- 
dren. It shall be our aim, then, to establish 
the three following propositions: 

I. The original covenant made with men re- 
quired the consecration of children by the ap- 
plication of the sign or token of the covenant 
to them. 

II. This covenant, first made with Abraham, 
with all its essential requirements, is still in 
force, and is in substance the covenant of grace, 
as it is amplified and illustrated to the whole 
world in Jesus Christ. 

III. That baptism has been made by divine 
authority the sign and seal of this covenant 
in the place of circumcision, which was the 
original token of it. 

If these three propositions can be sustained 
by the Scriptures, then the doctrine of infant 
baptism is true. We ask, then, a candid, care- 
ful, and prayerful consideration of the testimo- 
nies in favor of these things. 

As Christianity is covenant in its character, 
then, and involves so much, let us look some- 
what into the beginning and history of this 
covenant between God and men, that we may 
see w r hat is implied in it, or rather what is re- 
quired of every one who assumes this solemn 
obligation. The first record in the Bible of a 



84 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

covenant between God and men involving this 
idea is in Gen. xii. 1-3: "Now the Lord had 
said unto Abraham, Get thee out of thy coun- 
try, and from thy kindred, and from thy fa- 
ther's house, unto a land that I will shew thee; 
and I will make of thee a great nation, and I 
wall bless thee, and make thy name great; and 
thou shalt be a blessing; and I will bless them 
that bless thee, and curse him that curseth 
thee; and in thee shall all families of the earth 
be blessed." Abraham obeyed God, and for- 
sook his father's house, and when he had got- 
ten into the land that was designated as the 
place, God appeared to him again and said 
( Gen. xiii. 14-17) : " Lift up now thine eyes, and 
look from the place where thou art northward, 
and southward, and eastward, and westward; 
for all the land which thou seest, to thee will I 
give it, and to thy seed forever. And I will 
make thy seed as the dust of the earth; so that 
if a man can number the dust of the earth, then 
shall thy seed also be numbered." Abraham 
received this word and dwelt in the land, but 
was childless, and began to doubt if God 
could possibly fulfill his word that he had 
promised. So, in response to this, God spoke 
to Abraham again (Gen. xv. 1-5): "After these 
things the word of the Lord came unto Abra- 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 85 

ham in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram; I am 
tliy shield, and thy exceeding great reward. 
And Abram said, Lord God, what wilt thou 
give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward 
of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus? 
And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast giv- 
en no seed; and, lo, one born in my house is 
mine heir. And, behold, the word of the Lord 
came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine 
heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine 
own bowels shall be thine heir. And he 
brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now 
toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be 
able to number them; and he said unto him, 
So shall thy seed be." 

When the time drew near when Abram 
should be blessed with an heir, the subject of 
this promise, God appeared to him again and 
revealed unto him the full provisions of that 
great covenant that respected not Abraham 
and his seed alone, but that is to culminate in 
the salvation of all the nations of the earth. 
The interview is reported in Gen. xvii. 1-13: 
"And when Abram was ninety years old and 
nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said 
unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk be- 
fore me, and be thou perf ect. And I will make 
my covenant between me and thee, and will multi- 



86 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

ply thee exceedingly. And Abram fell on his 
face; and God talked with him, saying, As for 
me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou 
shalt be a father of many nations. Neither 
shall thy name any more be called Abram, but 
thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of 
many nations have I made thee. And I will 
make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make 
nations of thee, and kings shall come out of 
thee. And I will establish my covenant be- 
tween me and thee and thy seed after thee in 
their generations, for an everlasting covenant, 
to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after 
thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy 
seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a 
stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlast- 
ing possession; and I will be their God. And 
God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my 
covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after 
thee in their generations. This is my covenant, 
which ye shall keep, between me and you and 
thy seed after thee; every man-child among you 
shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise 
the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a to- 
ken of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he 
that is eight days old shall be circumcised 
among you, every man-child in your genera- 
tions, he that is born in the house, or bought 



SUBJECTS Of baptism. 87 

with money of any stranger, which is not of 
thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he 
that is bought with thy money, must needs be 
circumcised; and my covenant shall be in your 
flesh for an everlasting covenant." 

In the several passages quoted above there 
is not a record of so many different covenants, 
but a succession of interviews between God 
and Abraham, in which the purpose of God 
touching the one great covenant was gradually 
revealed to his faithful servant. Taking all 
these passages together, we have a complete 
history of the matter. In the last passage 
quoted (Gen. xvii. 1-13), the covenant, with its 
stipulations and terms and conditions, is stated, 
and the token of it appointed. Whereupon 
God for his part confirmed it by an oath; 
swearing by himself, as he could swear by no 
greater. And he required Abraham to con- 
firm it in an equally solemn manner, which he 
did. Concerning this important engagement, 
thus ratified and involving such vast destinies, 
we remark, 

First, it was duplex in its character. That 
is, it was partly secular and temporal, and 
partly spiritual. The important feature of the 
covenant was spiritual, and secured to Abraham 
unnumbered blessings in his own life and in 



88 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

that of his family, and gave him abundant as- 
surance of a life to come. It is said of him, 
therefore: "By faith he sojourned in the land 
of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling 
in tabernacles; . . . for he looked for a city 
which hath foundations, whose builder and 
maker is God." 

Moreover, he was by it to be the honored 
father of an immense multitude, and should in 
some way be a blessing to all the nations of 
the earth. "In thee shall all the families of 
t]ie earth be blessed." Here we see what was 
contemplated. The real significance of this 
promise Paul shows in Gal. iii. 16: "Now to 
Abraham and his seed were the promises made. 
He saith not, And to seeds, as of many [as if 
"the blessing should be on account of the mul- 
titude of the posterity]; but as of one, And to thy 
seed [singular], which is Christ." The bless- 
ing that should come upon all nations through 
Abraham is defined to be Christ, who is the 
Saviour of the world. It was not, then, the 
multitude of Abraham's posterity, or some 
great thing that they should do for the nations, 
that this promise contemplated; but one which, 
says the apostle, is Christ. This was the 
prominent and specific feature of the covenant, 
and was spiritual. All other items and feat- 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 89 

ures were subordinate to this, and, in fact, aids 
to its accomplishment. Abraham engaged to 
"walk before God, and be perfect" — that is, 
to be his willing and obedient servant; just 
what every one has had to do since who is ac- 
cepted of him. But where such entire resig- 
nation was required ample provision had to be 
made for the sustenance of Abraham and his 
posterity; hence the secular part of the cove- 
nant which endowed Abraham and his poster- 
ity with that vast estate of territory bounded 
only by the horizon; and with many other dis- 
tinctive "benefits. But this estate^vas temporal, 
and designed only to serve as the scaffolding to 
the main feature of the covenant, which con- 
templates the spiritual welfare of the whole 
world. 

We observe, second, that Abraham was re- 
quired to assume this covenant for himself and 
for his children also. He was constituted 
their representative, and they were to be made 
parties to this covenant just as one making an 
agreement that is to be perpetual binds his 
heirs and assigns forever. Even the stranger 
that sojourned with him had to submit to these 
stipulations. The relation of children to the 
covenant of religion and the obligation that is 
upon the parent respecting his children are 



90 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

here clearly defined and imposed by Almighty 
God. In case of neglect or omission for any 
cause, the child thus left without covenant re- 
lations should be cut off from his people. Not 
damned necessarily, but deprived of the rich 
promises of the covenant. It is well for us to 
remember that this covenant on the part of the 
parent implies more than the circumcision of a 
child. It meant the careful and godly training 
of one's posterity, as God said: "I know Abra- 
ham, that he will command his children, and his 
household after him, and they shall keep the way 
of the Lord to do justice and judgment; that the 
Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he 
hath spoken of." 

So important was it that Abraham should 
consecrate his entire household in sincerity 
that God put him to the test on this very arti- 
cle of the covenant when he required him to 
present Isaac as a burnt-offering before him. 
God tried Abraham to see if he would indeed 
give him his son as he had promised to do. 
Abraham was faithful to his vow, and withheld 
not his only son, though he had been designated 
as the promised seed. Thus he came to be the 
"father of the faithful," and an example to all 
who should come after him. 

Third. We remark that this covenant had 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 91 



its token, or sign, which Abraham received 
himself, and teas to administer to his seed in their 
generations while as yet they were but eight days 
old, and to the children of his servants, and to the 
strangers who dwelt with him; thus committing 
them to all the requirements of this covenant. 
The token of the covenant was circumcision. 
This was to be a sign not simply of the fact 
that one was of the seed of Abraham — many- 
aliens and strangers were circumcised — but it 
was the sign of the covenant. It was not merely 
a mark of national distinction: it signified 
that the individual receiving it was committed 
to the great Abrahamic covenant whose re- 
quirement was inward and outward purity. 
Hence says Paul (Kom. ii. 28, 29) : "He is not a 
Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that 
circumcision, which is outward in the flesh; 
but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and 
circumcision is that of the heart, and the spirit, 
and not in the letter; ivhose praise is not of men, 
but of God." Moreover, it was a seal, which se- 
cured to every one that was circumcised the 
riches of the promise, on the condition, not 
that circumcision had been submitted to alone, 
but that the obligation of the covenant, of which 
circumcision was the token, would be duly re- 
garded. "For," says Paul (Eom. ii. 25)', "cir- 



92 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

cumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the laic; 
but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy cir- 
cumcision is made uncircumcision." 

Here we see the spirit and import of circum- 
cision — that iLwas something more than a mere 
mark of national distinction. It was the sign 
and seal of the covenant, and witnessed that 
every one receiving it was not merely an heir 
to the temporal estate of Abraham, but a child 
of the promise, and under obligation to " walk 
before God and be perfect." Circumcision 
without obedience profiteth nothing. 



CHAPTER II. 

The Perpetuity of the Abrahamic Covenant. 



We have seen that the covenani made with 
Abraham contemplated the peace and happi- 
ness of the whole world, and that it was spir- 
itual in its significance, though temporal bless- 
ings were also secured to Abraham and his 
seed by it. We have seen, also, that this cove- 
nant embraced children who were compelled, 
at the age o£ eight days, to receive the token 
of it. In the next place, I will endeavor to 
show that this same covenant, made so long a 
time ago, has never been disannulled, but is still 
in force, and that whatever of blessing we en- 
joy through the gospel we inherit according to 
its provisions and promises. In other words, 
the gospel is the expansion and fulfillment of 
the Abrahamic covenant. As said in the be- 
ginning, I offer no argument for infant bap- 
tism on the identity of the Church in all ages, 
because the word Church is too indefinite. Be- 
sides, it does not appear to all alike that the 
visible Church has been just the same all along. 
It is evident, however, that the constitution of 
the Church, so to speak, has ever been the 

(93) 



94 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

same, and will so continue to the end of time. 
If it can be shown, therefore, that this consti- 
tution, which is the covenant made with Abra- 
ham, in its formation made provision for chil- 
dren, and required every parent to consecrate 
his children to God, remains unaltered in this 
respect, it will be established beyond all doubt 
that infants ought to be baptized: provided, 
further, that it can be proved that baptism is 
the sign and seal of the covenant. This I 
think I shall be able to do. 

Some think that Jesus Christ came into the 
world to inaugurate and establish a system of 
religion entirely new and different from every 
thing that had gone before; that all the cove- 
nants made with the fathers were disannulled, 
or so fulfilled as to become of no further obli- 
gation. This cannot be true. There is but 
one God, and the principles of righteousness 
and religion are eternal. What w^as essential 
in one age to eternal life is essential in an- 
other, and in all ages. Time disturbs noth- 
ing but forms and ceremonies. Christ did not 
make his advent into this world as the founder 
of a new religion, but as the exponent of the 
old. When the Jews charged him with this, 
he replied: "I came not to destroy the law and 
the prophets, but to fulfill." Which meant 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 95 

that he came to confirm and to establish, not 
to antagonize. The "law and the prophets" 
were not types nor shadows. The law was the 
expression of God's will, the interpretation of 
the covenant of his mercy, and the prophets 
were his mouth -piece ; he spoke by them. What 
is said of the law and the prophets, therefore, 
is true of the one great system that was illus- 
trated and confirmed in the way of a covenant 
with Abraham. Christ did not come to impair 
it in any essential feature, but to strengthen, 
confirm, illustrate, and carry out the promises 
respecting the happiness of all families of the 
earth. Hence we read (Rom. xv. 8): "Now I 
say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the cir- 
cumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the 
promises made unto the fathers." Here the of- 
fice and mission of our Lord are clearly stated. 
He was a "minister of the circumcision." Cir- 
cumcision, we have seen, was the token of the 
covenant made with Abraham, and was a syno- 
nym for it. When we speak of circumcision, 
then, we mean that covenant. Christ, says the 
apostle, was a "minister " of this. That means 
that he was an embassador, an agent, repre- 
senting the interests belonging to this cove- 
nant. I am aware that some interpret "cir- 
cumcision" here to mean the Jewish people, 



96 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

and tell us that Christ was their minister — a 
Jewish teacher. But this cannot be the case. 
True, he was a Jew, but his office and minis- 
try were not restricted to the Jews. He is the 
Saviour of the world. He was a minister of 
the covenant made with Abraham, sent accord- 
ing to God's promise, and he came, as Paul 
declares, "for the truth of God," to fulfill 
what he had promised. He came, after cent- 
uries of preparation and delay, to "confirm the 
promises given unto the fathers ," and thus to ful- 
fill God's part of the great covenant, and ex- 
tend to the whole human family the provis- 
ions of the promise. 

In further proof of the perpetuity of the 
covenant made with Abraham, I refer to Gal. 
iii. 8: "And the Scripture, foreseeing that 
God would justify the heathen through faith, 
preached before the gospel unto Abraham, 
saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed." 
Here we have the very language of that cove- 
nant quoted, which the apostle calls the "gos- 
pel," and says that it was "preached before- 
hand unto Abraham." But the identity of 
the gospel and the covenant made with Abra- 
ham was discovered to be in this, that all are 
justified alike by faith. Abraham was, and 
the heathen — and, in fact, all the world — are 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 97 

justified in this way. It was the justification 
of the heathen by faith that was meant when 
it was said to Abraham, "In thee shall all na- 
tions be blessed." Language could not make 
it more definite. If this statement of the apos- 
tle is to be credited — and surely no one can 
doubt it — then the gospel of Jesus Christ, 
which is the great plan of redemption, is none 
other than the expansion of the Abrahamic 
covenant. And if this be true, then all the 
essential features of that covenant are still 
obligatory. 

But there are othe: scriptures touching this 
important view. In Acts iii. 25 we read: " Ye 
are the children of the prophets, and of the 
covenant which God made with our fathers, say- 
ing unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all 
the kindreds of the earth be blessed." In this 
Peter reminds the people of the covenant made 
with Abraham, quoting the precise language, 
and calls them the children of it — L e. 9 heirs. 
This implies that it was still in force, and that 
it was the only ground of hope and trust, and 
through it, and it alone, they might obtain the 
remission of sins. Surely if Christ had re- 
pealed or disannulled it, and laid another 
ground of hope to the world, this apostle would 
not so vehemently have insisted on the prom- 
7 



98 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

ises made to the fathers. The fact that the 
address was made principally to a congrega- 
tion of Jews does not affect the truth. Very- 
true, the Jews had enjoyed many distinctive 
privileges; but the covenant mercies hitherto 
restricted to that nation are now extended to 
all the families of the earth. 

That the gospel is the expansion and fulfill- 
ment — in other words, the continuance — of 
that system of mercy of which the Jewish peo- 
ple were so long the depositories is further ev- 
ident from Ephesians ii. 11, 12. Paul, address- 
ing the Gentiles, says: * Wherefore remember, 
that ye being in time past Gentiles in tho 
flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that 
which is called the Circumcision in the flesh 
made by hands; that at that time ye were 
without Christ, being aliens from the common- 
wealth of Israel, and strangers from the cov- 
enants of promise, having no hope, and with- 
out God in the world." Here we have the 
former condition of the Gentiles described — 
that is, before the gospel was preached unto 
them. They were uncireumcised. Circumcis- 
ion was the token of the covenant of the re- 
demption, and to be uncireumcised meant to 
be without covenant relations. In fact, the 
apostle declares them to have been ''strangers 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 99 

to the covenants of promise" and "aliens to the 
commonwealth of Israel " — not belonging to 
it or sharing in its privileges — and, in fact, 
were atheists in the world, being without Christ. 
To have Christ and to sustain a vital relation 
to him is to be in friendly relations to Israel 
and the commonwealth thereof, and to be in 
the full enjoyment of the covenants of prom- 
ise, which shows that Christ is the fulfillment 
of the Abrahamic covenant. Paul, describing 
the present status of the Gentiles, says: "Ye 
are no more strangers [to the covenants of prom- 
ise] nor aliens [from the commonwealth of Is- 
rael], but now in Christ Jesus ye who some- 
times were far off are made nigh by the blood 
of Christ." Made nigh unto what? Not to 
the blood, for it was in the blood that made 
them nigh; made nigh unto those things to 
which they were strangers and aliens in the 
former times. They were admitted to all the 
privileges of the circumcision, and were in- 
vested with the full franchises of the common- 
wealth of Israel. Observe, it is the same com- 
monwealth with another people admitted into 
it. This was not the civil polity of the Jewish 
nation. That community was henceforth to 
be done away, having served its purpose as a 
politico-ecclesiastical body. It was doomed; 



100 THE TOKEN OF TTIE COVENANT. 

and a spiritual community or commonwealth 
composed of Jews and Gentiles called the 
"household of God" was to continue in the 
world. But there was no change of religion. 
The terms of salvation continued; and there 
was no more change in the covenant than there 
would be in the Constitution of a State or 
commonwealth if another State should be con- 
solidated upon it. Because, therefore, of the 
retention of all the essential features of the 
covenant as the constitution of this spiritual 
kingdom the body is the same, the Gentiles 
only being admitted as " fellow-citizens with 
the saints." 

New, I ask if the fundamental law of this 
great commonwealth had from its first utter- 
ance required parents to dedicate their chil- 
dren to God and apply unto them the token of 
the covenant, would not the same be required 
still? And if the Gentiles be admitted to 
citizenship, would they not come under this 
provision too? Most assuredly, unless it be 
repealed or an exception be made in their be- 
half, which was never done. No matter wheth- 
er the identity of the visible Church has been 
preserved or not, the covenant— which is the 
constitution of the Church, and that wherein 
our obligation is defined — has been perpetu- 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 101 

ated. This covenant imposed an obligation 
upon every parent to bring his children into 
covenant relation to God, and it imposes it still. 
It is on this feature of the Christian covenant 
that the doctrine of infant baptism relies for 
its support. 

Enough has been said, I dare say, on the 
perpetuity of the covenant made with Abra- 
ham to establish it beyond doubt; but as much 
depends on this proposition, I cannot forbear 
to call attention to one other passage touch- 
ing the point 

Romans xi. 17-24. "And if some of the 
branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild 
olive-tree, wert graffed in among them, and 
with them partakest of the root and fatness of 
the olive-tree; boast not against the branches. 
But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, 

but the root thee For if thou wert cut 

out of the olive-tree which is wild by nature, 
and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good 
olive-tree; how much more shall these, which 
be the natural branches, be graffed into their oivn 
olive-tree?" In this metaphor the Jews are 
described as the "natural branches " of a stock, 
and the Gentiles as wild olives "graffed in 
among them''' and made partakers of this stock 
with them. This parent stock called a good 



102 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

olive-tree was the peculiar property of the 
Jews. They were its natural branches, and 
all that had distinguished them from time im- 
memorial had come through it. Some of the 
branches were broken off and the branches of 
a wild olive grafted in, but the original stock 
still remained and is to continue. Even the 
branches that were broken off shall in due 
course of time be grafted into their own olive- 
tree again if they abide not in unbelief. Now, 
what is this stock here called an olive-tree inta 
which the Gentiles are grafted? It cannot 
mean the family of Abraham. The Gentiles 
were never made partakers of that, nor were 
any of the Jews ever deprived of their blood 
relationship. Nor can it mean the Jewish 
commonwealth. The Gentiles were never con- 
solidated with that government. And as for 
the religious ritual of the Jews, the apostle de- 
clares that to have been abolished in Christ. 
The stock of which the Gentiles were made 
partakers was undoubtedly that which had 
made Israel a peculiar people, which was not 
their blood, nor their form of government, nor their 
style of worship, but the covenant which God made 
with their fathers — their religion. This was 
the root whence sprung all their blessings; and 
into this gracious system all the peoples of the 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 103 

world are admitted. So that we have it not 
only in statement, exhortation, and appeal, but 
in metaphor too plain to he misunderstood, 
that the same covenant of promise continues 
through all the ages. 

If it be said that we are now under the pro- 
visions of a new covenant, I ask when, where, 
and with whom was it made? and what are its 
provisions? There is certainly no mention in 
the Bible of any such transaction. In He- 
brews viii., St. Paul alludes to the prophecy of 
Jeremiah respecting a new covenant to be 
made with the house of Israel. But this was 
new as compared only with the Sinaitic cove- 
nant, whose place it was to take. The cove- 
nant made at Sinai had " ordinances of divine 
service " (Heb. xiv. 1), " and a worldly sanctu- 
ary, and sacrifices," and a great many things 
which were figures for the time then present. 
But all these were done away, and the law, or 
covenant, of spiritual worship substituted for 
them. This is the covenant that Jeremiah 
foretold, and that has come to pass. But it 
took the place of the Sinaitic, and not of the 
Abrahamic. Besides, children are not exclud- 
ed even by this new covenant; "for they shall 
know me, saith the Liord, from the least of them 
unto the greatest:' The truth is, God never 



104 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

made a covenant with man that did not include 
his children also. 

It is established, therefore, by the authority 
of the Scriptures, that the covenant made with 
Abraham is an everlasting covenant, and that 
we of this generation are under its provisions. 
And if so, then children are to be admitted 
into its relations. 



CHAPTER III. 

Baptism the Sign and Seal of the Covenant, and 
Not the Door of the Church. 



Having established by the Scriptures the con- 
tinuance of the covenant made with Abraham — 
which, as we have seen, required that its token 
be applied to children — there remains but one 
other thing to be done in order to prove that 
children ought to be baptized; and that is, to 
show that baptism is now the sign and seal of the 
covenant. If this can be done, our argument is 
complete, and the doctrine of infant baptism 
is true. 

The original token of the covenant was cir- 
cumcision. That, for good reasons, has been 
done away and another instituted. I was 
about to say that baptism takes the place of 
circumcision. In so far as it is the outward, 
visible means of entering into covenant rela- 
tions to God, this is true — for on this depends 
our argument; but I cannot affirm that baptism 
simply takes the place of circumcision. Bap- 
tism evidently implies something that circum- 
cision did not, or else the apostles would have 
commanded to leave off circumcising and be- 

(105) 



106 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

gin baptizing, which they did not, but com- 
manded all to be baptized, even though they 
had been circumcised. Every one was re- 
quired to assume voluntarily the obligation of a 
new life. This formal token which they had 
received had lost its significance to them. The 
spirit and meaning of circumcision were lost 
in the letter of it. The difference between 
baptism and circumcision seems to be about 
this, in which we see sufficient reason for the 
change: Circumcision could be administered 
only to males, and it was restricted to the fam- 
ily of Abraham, and to such as would consent 
to be adopted into that family. Although it 
was the token of a covenant that contemplated 
a blessing to all nations, it was in some meas- 
ure a mark of national distinction. Whether 
it was originally designed to be such or not, its 
restriction to one family through so many ages 
gave it a national significance. As the secular 
part of the covenant was now fulfilled, having 
served its purpose, like the scaffolding to a 
building, it was wise to change the sign of the 
covenant that all distinctions of sex, nationali- 
ty, and station in life might disappear in the 
gospel. Hence it is said that so far as we all 
stand related to the gospel (Gal. iii. 28), 
"there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 107 

neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor 
female, for ye are all one in Christ." These 
distinctions could never have been abolished 
and the whole Church put upon an equality if 
that had remained which more than any thing 
else had power to perpetuate them — to wit, cir- 
cumcision. Therefore, it was abolished, and a 
new and beautiful symbol instituted — one that 
marks no distinctions of sex or nation. This 
change of the token of the covenant, however, 
implied no change in the covenant itself, any 
more than a change in the manner of witness- 
ing a contract would imply a change in the 
contract. It w:as the token or sign of the cove- 
nant that was changed, not the covenant. 
This was done without violence, for the very 
best of reasons, as w r e have seen. 

Baptism was instituted, then, by divine au- 
thority, as the sign and seal of the covenant; 
and we are under obligation to receive it, and 
to administer it to our children. 

Baptism is not the door into the Church — as 
some say — except in a remote sense. True 
enough, Church-membership follows, but the 
design of baptism is not simply to initiate one 
into visible connection with the Church. For 
lack of understanding on this very point, there 
has been perplexity in many minds about the 



108 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

relation of children to the Church. I would 
have you bear in mind that this ordinance re- 
lates to the covenant, and is an act of consecration; 
being the outward, formal manner by which 
one assumes the obligations of the covenant of 
grace. Baptism is, then, not a mere rite gt 
ceremony for joining the Church. Nor was 
circumcision. It is called — and very properly 
so — a sacrament; because we do thereby signi- 
fy our agreement to the covenant of mercy, 
and pledge ourselves to a life of faith and obe- 
dience. The sacramental character of baptism 
is the point we have in view. Hence, in the 
ritual for receiving members into the Church, 
candidates are required to " ratify and confirm 
the baptismal covenant" which means that they 
assume this obligation for themselves, their 
parents having done it for them while they 
were irresponsible. 

The relation of baptism to the covenant is 
clearly implied in Acts ii. 38: " Repent, and be 
baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus 
Christ for the remission of sins/' Here bap- 
tism is associated with the forgiveness of sins. 
The relation between them is denoted by the 
preposition for (Greek, eis). It is difficult to 
perceive at once the precise meaning and force 
of this particle. We can understand it more 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 109 



readily, perhaps, by comparison. Take an in- 
stance, which is in Matt, iii, 11: "I indeed 
baptize you with w^ater unto (eis) repentance." 
Here the preposition is the same, and governs 
the same case. It shows the relation between 
John's baptism and repentance — " baptize you 
unto repentance." What does this mean ? Cer- 
tainly not that John forced repentance upon 
the people; nor that he, by baptism, did con- 
fer repentance upon them. Repentance is an 
individual work, voluntary with every one. 
Being baptized could not necessarily cause re- 
pentance; and yet they were baptized unto it. 
Why, then, baptize ? The answer is easy. John 
preached repentance. But repentance implies 
an obligation, a duty. Fruits meet for repent- 
ance had to be brought forth. Every one that 
submitted to John's baptism resolved to lead a 
new life, and to receive the Messiah when he 
should be pointed out. The design of the bap- 
tism was to commit them to this thing. It was 
the public, formal manner of assuming an ob- 
ligation, the sign and seal of an engagement. 
Hence, they were baptized "unto repentance," 
because repentance was the thing contemplat- 
ed. Now, what John's baptism was to repent- 
ance, Christian baptism is to the remission of 
mis. It does not necessarily secure or confer 



110 THE TOKEN OE THE COVENANT. 

the remission of sins, nor wash away sins, as 
some vainly imagine, nor in anywise, on its 
own account, obtain pardon ; but it is the formal 
manner of accepting Christ. It relates to the 
remission of sins; and that remission is grant- 
ed on the condition of simple trust in Christ, ex- 
ercised when the soul accepts the covenant of 
mercy. There is an obligation to be assumed, 
an agreement to enter into, before the remis- 
sion of sins can be obtained. It is an obliga- 
tion of faith in Christ and obedience to him. 
This is the covenant of which baptism is the 
sign and seal. Baptism contemplates the re- 
mission of sins, and hence we are baptized for 
remission, or unto remission; that is, looking 
for and expecting remission of sins through 
faitli in Jesus Christ. Now remission of sins 
is extended to all men, under the provisions of 
the covenant made with Abraham. The very 
heathen, saith the Scriptures, are justified by 
faith, according to its promises. If baptism, 
therefore, stands so related to the remission 
of sins, and is the visible means of entering 
into covenant relation to God, and if the ob- 
ligation that we assume in Christ is that pre- 
scribed in the covenant made with Abraham, 
Christ being the promised seed, does it not 
follow that baptism is the sign and seal of the 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. Ill 

covenant? And if it is, it takes the place of 
circumcision, which was the former token, and 
should therefore be administered to children. 

Another important text that shows the sac- 
ramental character of baptism is Rom. vi. 4: 
" Know ye not that so many of us as were bap- 
tized unto (eis) Jesus Christ were baptized unto 
(eis) his death ? " The argument of the apostle is 
this: The "free gift" which is in Christ is not 
simply an offset to the loss sustained in Adam, 
but far more, inasmuch as it provides forgive- 
ness for all the sins of the world. So that 
where sin abounds — no matter how abundant — 
grace does much more abound. Some might 
conclude, therefore, that it would magnify the 
grace of God to go to an excess in sin, and 
thus afford grace an opportunity. In reply to 
this St. Paul presents the design and purpose 
of baptism: "Know ye not that so many of us 
as were baptized unto (eis) Jesus Christ, were 
baptized unto (eis) his death?" Baptism, in 
Paul's mind, meant consecration unto Christ, 
and it contemplates newness of life. The for- 
mer appetites, w r ith the affections and lusts of 
the flesh, must be crucified; that as Christ died, 
so in a mystical sense w^e must also die with 
him. Religion means death on the one hand, 
and life on the other. But this requires not 



112 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

submission to a ritual performance only, like 
baptism, but a solemn engagement of heart 
and purpose, to put on Christ, to be conformed 
to his life and death; and it is the covenant char- 
acter of our faith that we show forth in bap- 
tism. Baptism is the sign and seal of that cove- 
nant that brings us into vital connection with 
Christ. Hence we are said to be baptized unto 
or into him. This seems to be sufficient to 
establish the covenant character of baptism, 
but there is one other passage of scripture 
bearing on this subject too important to be 
omitted (Gal. iii. 27) : " For as many of you as 
have been baptized into \eis] Christ have put 
on Christ." It must not be supposed that bap- 
tism operates of its own saving quality to bring 
any one into vital connection with Christ. As 
said above, such a thing is impossible. No 
outward form or service can do this. But bap- 
tism points to Christ, and is an act of consecra- 
tion by which one publicly and formally " puts 
on Christ " — L e., assumes the likeness and char- 
acter of him, and engages to keep his com- 
mandments. The point I want to make is, 
that the vow and covenant assumed by baptism 
into Christ is the Abrahamic. Now that this is 
the case is evident from that utterance of the 
apostle that immediately follows (Gal. iii. 29): 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 113 

" If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, 
and heirs according to the promise" To be 
Christ's — that is, his disciple — is to be the seed 
of Abraham. Living relation to Christ, se- 
cured by faith, makes one a child of Abraham. 
Every child of Abraham is an heir of his. A 
disciple of Christ is an heir of Abraham, just 
as if he had sprung from the loins of that pa- 
triarch, and is as much entitled to the inherit- 
ance. The apostle says: "Being children, ye are 
heirs according to the promise." The promise 
was a "blessing to all nations." This blessing 
we obtain in Christ, the promised seed. But 
we inherit according to the terms and condi- 
tions prescribed when the promise was given, 
which was when God made the covenant with 
Abraham. All who come into the family of 
Abraham, and partake of the blessing of life 
in Christ Jesus, must accept the covenant. 
But we signify our acceptance of Christ by 
baptism — "we are baptized into him." If be- 
ing baptized unto Christ, then, makes one an 
heir of Abraham, as the Scripture says, and as 
every heir of Abraham must necessarily ac- 
cept the covenant made with him, does it not 
follow that baptism is the sign and seal of that 
covenant quite as truly as circumcision was for- 
merly ? And if this be so, then children ought 
8 



114 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

to be baptized; for the requirement made of 
every parent under that covenant was that he 
consecrate his children unto God. 

Every one must acknowledge that baptism is 
the sign of a covenant — some covenant. Like 
circumcision, its significance is not outward; 
it is not a mere rite. What, then, is the obli- 
gation imposed by it? If it be said, "A life of 
faith and obedience to God," I answer, very 
true. But this is precisely what Abraham en- 
gaged to do; nothing more, nothing less. This 
we are required also to do. But God enjoined 
Abraham also to " command his children after 
him," and cause them to understand the im- 
portance of this same obligation. Circumcis- 
ion meant nothing more nor less than the con- 
secration of children to God and their godly 
training. It was a sign of inward purity, the 
cutting off of the lusts of the flesh, and very 
appropriately indicated the real meaning of 
the covenant entered into before God — new- 
ness of life. 

Are Christian people under any obligation 
to command their children, and teach them the 
way of the Lord? Certainly not. This dui^ 
to train one's household is the highest possi- 
ble of all obligations — next to one's individual 
salvation. The covenant, therefore, has been 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 115 

the same through all time, and will so con- 
tinue. The change of the sign of it does no 
violence whatever. If it was required that the 
sign of the covenant be applied to children in 
the first instance, so is it required still. 

We have now finished our first and main 
argument in favor of infant baptism, in the 
establishment of three propositions : 

I. The original covenant made with man re- 
quired the consecration of children by the 
application of the token of the covenant to 
them. 

II. This covenant, first made with Abraham, 
with all its essential requirements, is still in 
force, and is in substance the covenant of 
grace. 

III. Baptism was made by divine authority 
the sign and seal of this covenant in the place 
of circumcision. 

If these three propositions be true, as I 
think has been abundantly proved, then is the 
doctrine of the baptism of children according 
to the word of God. 



CHAPTER IV. 

New Testament Authority for Infant Baptism. 



"Ws come now to inquire into the New Testa- 
ment authority for infant baptism. There is 
often a great flourish of trumpets by the op- 
ponents of the doctrine, because, as they say, 
there is no specific command given in the New 
Testament to baptize children. As little chil- 
dren are not mentioned anywhere as proper 
subjects of baptism, the conclusion is hastily 
drawn that there is indeed no Scripture war- 
rant for the practice. That there w r as no spe- 
cific command to baptize children given by our 
Lord or his apostles is true, for the reason that 
none was needed. Such specific mention of 
children would imply that the consecration of 
them was a new doctrine, or that some doubt 
existed as to its truth and correctness, neither 
of which was true. The relation of children 
to the covenant and the obligation of parents 
respecting them w r ere well defined and under- 
stood. It was no more necessary, therefore, 
to give a specific command to baptize chil- 
dren than it was to give one to baptize adults 
as such. Neither sex nor age, nor any other 
(HO) 



SUBJECTS Of baptism. 117 

class distinction, is prescribed in the New Tes- 
tament as qualification for baptism or for the 
kingdom of heaven. All of every age are em- 
braced who meet the simple conditions in the 
gospel. Christ did not commission his disci- 
ples to go and baptize men or women or adults 
or children, but to go "preach the gospel to 
every creature." 

Let us suppose that men had been specific- 
ally mentioned as the subjects of baptism; 
that Jesus had said, " Go and baptize all na- 
tions, and be sure that you baptize the men." 
Such a command would have excluded the 
other sex, or somehow rendered their baptism 
less important. So if a specific command had 
been given to baptize children, adults would 
thereby have been excluded. The class not 
included in a command is necessarily excluded 
by implication. The very fact that no one 
class is specified is proof that all are included. 
The Scriptures very wisely make no distinc- 
tions of age or sex in extending the benefits 
of the gospel; but all, of every age and of ev- 
ery name under heaven; who accept the terms 
of the gracious covenant, are admitted. The re- 
lation of child and parent was so well understood 
that a specific command respecting the litle ones 
would have been a work of supererogation. 



118 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

But, while we allow that there is no specific 
command in the New Testament to baptize 
children, we are far from admitting that there 
is no scriptural authority for the practice. The 
sense of the Scriptures may be given in other 
ways than by a specific command. It is not 
true, as is often said, that the advocates of in- 
fant baptism rely on tradition and Romish su- 
perstition to prove their doctrine. We appeal 
to the New Testament and to the authority 
given by our Lord to baptize, and think it can 
be shown by a fair constructiou of the words 
of Jesus that the doctrine is true. The com- 
mission of Jesus Christ to his apostles, which 
is the supreme authority for baptizing at all, 
when properly construed and explained, leaves 
no doubt as to who are to be baptized. It is 
as follows (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20) : " Go ye there- 
fore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in 
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe 
all things whatsoever I have commanded." 
Here is the commission of the apostles, and 
their duties are prescribed. We observe that 
they are not commanded to go and baptize all 
nations, as if baptism was the principal thing; 
but they are commanded to go and " teach all 
nations, baptizing them." The word in the 






SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 119 

original tongue, here translated "teach," is 
matheteusate, which properly means to " disci- 
ple," to make or constitute one a disciple. The 
Revised Version translates it " make disciples 
of all nations," which is a very correct render- 
ing. This word " teach " must not be confound- 
ed with that other word translated "teach" 
in the following part of the text: "Teaching 
them to observe all things whatsoever," etc. 
Here the word is didaskwites, which means to 
teach, to give information, to instruct, and is 
altogether different in its meaning from the 
former w T ord. Failing to observe this distinc- 
tion between these two words, both translated 
" teach " in the Bible, we miss the true mean- 
ing of the commission. Discipling and teach- 
ing are very different things. 

A disciple is a pupil, a scholar; one who is 
under tutors for instruction. The act, or proc- 
ess, or ceremony, no matter what it may be, by 
which one is admitted to membership as a pu- 
pil and put under the direction and authority 
of a governor or tutor, constitutes one a dis- 
ciple. Colleges call it matriculation. To be 
enrolled as a student of a college or university 
is to matriculate in it. The education follows, 
as the word "teaching them to observe" fol- 
lows in the text. The w r ord "matriculate" is 



120 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

not the one used in the New Testament to de- 
note this idea, but the sense is the same. The 
apostles were appointed to go and " make dis- 
ciples of the nations." They were to preach 
the gospel to all nations without any distinction, 
and commit, or consecrate, to the authority of 
Jesus Christ all who would consent to be 
saved; and this consecrating of them was dis- 
cipling them. It meant to take a pledge of 
them to do whatsoever Jesus had commanded. 
This was to matriculate them in the school of 
Christ. This is what discipling means. The 
means or process by which this was and is 
still to be done was baptism. "Disciple all 
nations, baptizing them," or by baptizing them. 
The participle here denotes the means by which 
the imperative should be obeyed. For ex- 
ample: "Cleanse the garment, washing it;" 
"cleanse the floor, sweeping it." The partici- 
ple shows how the cleansing is to be effected. 
This is precisely the force and meaning of the 
participle in the commission, " Disciple the 
nations, baptizing them." Baptism is the in- 
strument in the hands of the apostles for mak- 
ing disciples, because it is the means by which 
all are pledged to the authority of Jesus Christ. 
We are not to suppose from this, however, 
that the apostles had power to make disciples 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 121 

at heart — that is, convert or regenerate men. 
By no means: this is the work of the Holy 
Spirit, who is alone able to renew the soul. 
Regeneration, however, is the ultimate aim of 
all effort and of every disciple. Every one 
constituted such is a learner, and is to be 
brought sooner or later to a knowledge of sal- 
vation in the remission of sins. 

Now, the question is this: Who are the sub- 
jects of baptism under this commission? Not 
all nations. The command is not, "Go and 
baptize all nations.*' That w r ould never do. 
But such are to be baptized as are to be disci- 
pled. Every one who is to be discipled is to 
be baptized. But the commission is, "Go ye 
therefore, and disciple all nations." No matter 
how sinful or how young or how old, the gos- 
pel is to all. Every one is to be made a disci- 
ple of Christ if possible, and every one thus 
made is to be baptized. Of course those who 
have come to years of maturity must consent 
to become disciples before they can be bap- 
tized. This is necessarily implied. But the 
consent of children is no more necessary than 
it was in the case of circumcision. The obli- 
gation is upon the parent, whose federal rela- 
tion is recognized in the gospel. 

In confirmation of this view of the office of 



122 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

baptism in the commission, let it be observed 
that to baptize "in the name of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," does 
not mean simply by the authority of that name, 
or the pronouncing of that name over the can- 
didate. The preposition rendered " in " is eis 9 
and is translated m the Revised Version " bap- 
tizing them into the name." The meaning is 
baptizing — consecrating — them "unto the name 
of the Father, and of. the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost." They are baptized unto the Holy 
Trinity — given, committed, unto him. This 
is in perfect harmony with the idea of disci- 
pling as stated and explained above. So we 
see that*the principal office of the apostles was 
first to disciple (by baptizing), and then to 
"teach," instruct, in the things pertaining to 
the kingdom of heaven. 

Ought children, then, to be made disciples 
of Christ, and taught to observe all things 
whatsoever he commanded? Or, in other 
words, ought they to be taught, trained from 
their earliest days, in the nurture and admoni- 
tion of the Lord? If so, they should be made 
disciples of Christ, which process as necessa- 
rily precedes the teaching as matriculation 
precedes instruction and graduation. And if 
they should be made disciples of — put into 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 123 

the school of — Christ, and made the subjects 
of religious culture, then they should be bap- 
tized, for that is the divine order. It is use- 
less to seek to evade the force of this reason- 
ing. As certainly as the words defined above 
bear the construction that we give them— not 
only in an etymological sense, but in a theo- 
logical sense — so surely are children included 
m the commission of our Lord. They are 
just as properly the subjects of baptism as 
anybody in the world, if it be allowed that 
they are the subjects of religious education, 
and that the office of Christian baptism is to 
commit all such subjects to the authority and 
teaching of Jesus Christ. Grant this, and 
there is no reasoning or sophistry that can re- 
fute the doctrine we advocate. I am aware 
that infants are not specified in the commis- 
sion. Neither are adults. No such distinc- 
tions are recognized here. The commission is 
to the "nations" whatever that word may in- 
clude. It is fair to infer that every inhabitant 
of the globe is meant. And if so, children 
are included. The propriety of it will be 
seen at once when w r e remember that no obli- 
gation is emphasized beyond the obligation to 
train and to teach children in the way of the 
Lord. Nothing is paramount to it. We hold, 



124 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

therefore, that it is the duty of every parent 
who presents himself to be constituted a dis- 
ciple to present his children also, that they 
may be made disciples of Christ too. It ac- 
cords with the teaching of Jesus, who said: 
" Suffer the little children to come unto me, 
and forbid them not; for of such is the king- 
dom of heaven." 

It may be said that children can be brought 
up under religious training without baptism. 
Certainly they can be; and many are so brought 
up whose baptism is, through misunderstand- 
ing, deferred. But so could adults who seek 
salvation be dealt with too. We might argue 
that as baptism has no saving property per se, 
nobody needs it; all can do without it. The 
fact is, Ave could very easily persuade ourselves 
that we could do as well without it as with it. 
But that is not God's plan. His command is, 
" Disciple all nations, baptizing them; " and then 
follows " teaching them," etc. Baptism is im- 
portant, or it would not have been appointed. 
And it is just as important for children as for 
grown people; and we are not to go about to 
mend the order of Providence, but to ob- 
serve it. 

So we think that we have established clear- 
ly the proposition in hand by the commission 



SUEJECTS OF BAPTISM. 125 

of Jesus to his apostles, whose fair construc- 
tion not only allows the baptism of children, 
but makes them as much the subjects as any 
one. 

Let us turn now to the opening sermon 
preached- under this new commission (Acts ii. 
38, 39). On the day of Pentecost, Peter stood 
up and, addressing the multitude, said: "Re- 
pent, and be baptized every one of you in the 
name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, 
and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 
For the promise is unto you, and to your chil- 
dren, and to all that are afar off, even as many 
as the Lord our God shall call." This address 
was to the whole multitude, which perhaps em- 
bi t ced thousands of people. What was said 
applied to "every one of them." Repentance 
was enjoined upon such only as had sinned 
and needed remission. It is by repentance 
that adults who have transgressed the law are 
qualified for baptism. But infants need no 
repentance, having never sinned; it is there- 
fore not required of them. But all need to be 
baptized. The repentance of an adult sinner 
puts him simply on an equality in a moral 
sense with a little child. " Except ye be con- 
verted, and become as little children, ye shall 
in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." 



126 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

So that if repentant sinners, who, by their re- 
pentance, become as little children, are proper 
subjects of baptism, so are children them- 
selves. They were not required to be bap- 
tized because they repented, as if no one else 
A\as entitled to the ordinance. Repentance is 
required only where sins have been commit- 
ted. The reason for both repentance and bap- 
tism is given: "For the promise is unto you, and 
to your children." They were to be baptized 
because the promise was to them. That was 
the ground of it, as the participle "for" shows. 
No other reason was necessary, for salvation is 
free. Peter had only to offer the words of the 
promise, and call upon them to accept it. It 
is to you, and to your children. Now, I ask, if 
they — the persons directly addressed — were en- 
titled to baptism for the reason that the prom- 
ise was to them, would not their children be 
entitled to it also? for the promise was to them 
too. If children were not embraced in these 
promises of mercy, and entitled to all the ben- 
efits, why should Peter have mentioned them 
so specifically? This very fact shows that he 
had in mind the promise contained in the cov- 
enant which embraced children with their 
parents. 

If it be said that "children" here means 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 127 

simply posterity, or coming generations, then 
I reply that it could be to little purpose to tell 
a convicted people that future generations had 
been provided for in the gospel. Besides, 
those "that are afar off" mentioned in his 
discourse would include them, intending, as 
the words do, to denote the illimitable fullness 
of the gospel. No; it meant them and their 
children, for that was the promise. We there- 
fore conclude that children are entitled to the 
ordinance, being heirs of the promise of which 
it is the sign. 



CHAPTER V. 

Objections Stated and Answered. 



I come- now to consider some of the objections 
commonly urged against the baptism of chil- 
dren; and in doing so, I shall present further 
and strong testimony in support of the doctrine. 
It is remarkable to note the utter silence of the 
Scriptures on the anti-pedobaptist side of this 
question. Their defense consists almost en- 
tirely in picking objections to the arguments 
offered in favor of the doctrine. 

The most plausible and popular objection 
that is made against the doctrine is, perhaps, 
that made by way of inference, from Mark xvi. 
16: "He that believeth and is baptized shall 
be saved." It is insisted that faith, or belief 
is a prerequisite to baptism ; that none but be- 
lievers are entitled to the ordinance. And as 
children are incapable of belief they are there- 
fore not proper subjects of baptism. 

One theory is that baptism is "for iho re- 
mission of sins;" a condition of pardon — so to 
speak — to believing penitents. And as infants 
have no actual transgressions to be forgiven, 
they in no way stand in need of baptism. 
(128) 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 129 

This theory has the merit of being consistent 
with itself at least. But it lacks the higher 
merit of being in harmony with the word of 
God. The fallacy lies in a mistaken view of 
the design of baptism, which is assumed to be 
"for the remission of sins." Baptism is not 
for the remission of sins in the sense of being 
a condition of pardon, and was never intended 
so to be, even to believing penitents. We are 
justified — that is, pardoned — by faith; and I 
do not hesitate to say, "by faith only." Abra- 
ham believed God, and it (his faith) was "count- 
ed unto him for righteousness" And this was 
done before he had been circumcised or had done 
any thing but believe in order to secure his 
justification. St. Paul says (Bom. iv. 23, 24): 
"Now it was not written for his sake alone, 
that it was imputed to him; but for us also, to 
whom it shall be imputed, if tee believe on him 
that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead." 
Here we see that justification, or pardon, is by 
faith only. Abraham was justified by it, and 
it alone; and the apostle declares that he was 
an example for us all. As baptism, therefore, 
does not take away sins, and is in no sense a 
condition of pardon, it cannot be urged that 
infants have no need of it, because they need 
no remission. 



130 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

Another theory is that while baptism is not 
in any sense a condition of justification, yet 
none but believers — those who have personal 
faith in Christ — are entitled to the ordinance. 
This sounds very much like affirming the ques- 
tion at issue. The meaning is, none but be- 
lievers or adults ought to be baptized. But 
that is the question to be proved, and we want 
'proof, not assertion. 

"He that believeth and is baptized," is con- 
strued so as to make belief antecedent to bap- 
tism. As infants cannot believe, they are of 
course excluded from the benefits of the insti- 
tute. This is the great argument against the 
doctrine of infant baptism. It therefore de- 
mands more than a passing notice. Observe, 
then, that this scripture is not intended to de- 
fine the relation of faith and baptism to each 
other, but to show the relation of both these 
things to salvation — final salvation. It does 
not read, " He that believeth may be baptized; " 
but, " He that believeth and is baptized shall be 
saved." No matter which precedes — faith, or 
baptism — salvation is the thing contemplated. 
Very true, such as are accountable must have 
a measure of faith before they are baptized, 
because without it they would not submit to 
the ordinance: but there is no reward in the 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 131 

mere precedence of faith. All, who are capable 
of doing so, must believe. The duty is posi- 
tive, and none dare neglect it. But it does not 
follow that because infants cannot give ear, 
and exercise faith, they must not therefore be 
baptized. It would also follow that they must 
necessarily be damned; for it is said that "he 
that believeth not shall be damned." Faith 
is as much a prerequisite to salvation as it 
can possibly be to baptism; and yet little chil- 
dren shall certainly be saved without faith. 
And if so, why may they not be baptized without 
it? Faith is no more essential to one than to the 
other. It is no doubt true that none but believ- 
ers among adults are proper subjects of baptism, 
for the very good reason that they are account- 
able and must consent to the ordinance. But 
children are not capable of belief or unbelief; 
hence they are relieved of all responsibility in 
the matter. The duty is upon the parent, 
whose faith and acceptance of Christ are fed- 
eral. He acts for himself, and for his chil- 
dren, as shown in the terms of the covenant of 
grace. Hence it is said of the jailer (Acts xvi. 
34): "He rejoiced, believing in God with all his 
house;" and in verse 33: "And teas baptized, he 
and all his, straightway." It is not material to 
our argument to show that there were infants 



132 THE TOKEN OF TTIE COVENANT. 

in the jailer's household. He was the head of 
the family, and his federal relation is recog- 
nized in the statement concerning his faith, 
and in the baptism of the entire household on 
his responsibility. Persons capable of doing so, 
must believe in the gospel in order to receive 
baptism. This nobody denies. But why is 
this so? It is not because there is any value 
or merit in the process or act of believing that 
obtains baptism or salvation that it is so. 
Faith is the soul's acceptance of Christ, the 
means by which it gains a vital relation to him. 
But it is the relation thus obtained, and not 
the mental work of believing, that entitles to 
the ordinance of baptism. The same was true 
of circumcision. Abraham believed God, and 
"he received the sign of circumcision, a seal 
of the righteousness of the faith [not right- 
eous faith, but righteousness of the faith] 
which he had, yet being uncircumcised." It 
is to this end that faith must be put forth. 
All who by actual transgression have forfeited 
their interest in the Saviour have to regain 
their lost estate by repentance toward God and 
faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and in view of 
the new relation thus secured are entitled to bap- 
tism. But infants need no repentance, never 
having forfeited their interest in the blood of 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 133 

Christ. They are already vitally connected 
with Christ, by virtue of his atonement made 
for them, and need not the painful process of 
repentance and faith to restore them to this 
relation. The truth is, little children sustain 
the relation of believers to Christ, not by virt- 
ue of innate purity, but by virtue of the 
atonement made for all men. Christ himself 
calls them believers, and presents them as mod- 
els for the rest of mankind. In Matt, xviii. 6, 
and Mark ix. 42, speaking of little children, 
one of whom he held in his arms at the mo- 
ment, Jesus said: "And whosoever shall offend 
one of these little ones that believe in me" 
And, again (Matt, xviii. 3) : " Except ye be con- 
verted, and become as little children, ye shall 
not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Here 
they are called believers. True, they have not 
personal faith in Christ; but because of their 
relation to him, such as believers have, they are 
classed with them, and so denominated. The 
real benefits they have, though they have not 
faith itself. If believers, then, are proper sub- 
jects of baptism irrespective of other condi- 
tions, so are children who are by our Lord 
classified with believers. Their lack of per- 
sonal trust is no objection, since it is not the 
mere faith that gives the right to baptism but 



134 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

the relation that is secured by it. That infants 
sustain this blessed relation there can be no 
doubt, not indeed by virtue of natural descent, 
but by virtue of the "free gift which has come 
upon all men unto justification of lifer Stand- 
ing in this relation, and being in consequence 
heirs of the kingdom, they are entitled to rec- 
ognition, and ought, by all means, to be kept 
under the tender mercies of the covenant of 
grace. If preference must be shown, it should 
be given to those who have never forfeited 
their right by actual transgression. Adults 
are not admitted to baptism until they are con- 
verted (at least from unbelief) and "become as 
little children" Why should the little ones 
themselves be rejected? It is this child char- 
acter, and child relation to God, after all, that 
is the necessary thing; and not until adults get 
back to the humility and trustfulness of little 
children are they thought to be worthy of bap- 
tism. 

Let us suppose that an individual twenty- 
one years of age could be commended as Jesus 
commended little children, and have it said of 
him, " Except ye be converted, and become as 
this man, ye shall not enter into the kingdom 
of heaven." I ask, would such a one be thought 
to be a fit subject for baptism? I dare say no 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 135 

Church calling itself Christian would reject 
him. But this is precisely what Jesus said of 
little children. Why, then, should a mere dif- 
ference in years be made a qualification? "We 
conclude, therefore, that if believers are en- 
titled to be baptized, so are infants, who are, 
to all intents and purposes, believers. 

It is curious to see the number of petty ob- 
jections that have been urged against the bap- 
tism of children. Mere quibbles, that would 
not be thought of in connection with scarcely 
any other proposition, have been magnified 
into an importance almost equal to the word 
of God, in connection with this. The truth is, 
while the opponents of infant baptism have all 
the while demanded a "thus saith the Lord" 
for the practice, they themselves have been 
able to offer no such positive proof against the 
doctrine, but have relied mainly, and almost 
entirely, on finding objections to it. A few 
more of the objections commonly urged shall 
now be noticed. 

It is affirmed that infants cannot understand 
the nature and design of the ordinance, and 
being incapable of assuming its obligations, 
ought not, therefore, to be baptized. 

I have repeatedly stated, in the course of this 
discussion, that the obligation is upon the par- 



136 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

ent, who is responsible for his children until 
they come to years of accountability. It is 
already in proof that the very character of the 
Christian covenant requires this. This being 
true, it is not at all necessary that infants should 
understand or comprehend the nature and de- 
sign of baptism in order to receive it. There 
are many things to be done for them whose im- 
mediate value and meaning they do not at all 
understand. If parents will only be faithful to 
their vows, their children will in due time 
show their appreciation of this early culture 
by choosing the good instead of the evil. 

Very true, salvation is individual in its rela- 
tions, and is a matter of one's own choice. It 
is for this reason that the Scriptures enjoin 
the most careful training of children, so that 
when they come to years they may most cer- 
tainly choose that which is good. It is to secure 
this choice on their part that such fidelity to 
their interest is required. 

But it is sometimes said: "If they die in in- 
fancy without baptism they shall be saved; and, 
therefore, it is not at all necessary to baptize 
them." Certainly, all who die in infancy un- 
baptized will be saved; but that is no reason 
why they should not be baptized. It is not 
the design of the ordinance to save, as though 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 137 



it were an extreme unction. It can neither 
deliver from sins here nor from the wrath to 
come. Those dying in infancy shall certainly 
be saved without it. But we must act in re- 
spect to baptism as we do in other things; that 
is, on the presumption that the child will live. 
And while it may be saved, in case of early 
death, being unbaptized, yet if it grows up 
without it, and without its covenant advan- 
tages, salvation is by no means so certain. It 
is to this life that baptism is appointed, and 
not to the life to come. And those that live 
and grow up in this world are the ones that 
need it, and not those that die in infancy. Par- 
ents sometimes feel unhappy if any of their 
children die and are not baptized. Well, our 
consciences ought to be quick on this sub- 
ject, and we should feel reproach where there 
has been neglect; but the sur riving children 
should be the subjects of our most constant 
care and concern. 

"O well," says one, "I believe in the relig- 
ious training of children as firmly as any one 
but this can be done without baptizing them." 
Certainly, it can be done, and I rejoice to think 
that it is often done by conscientious parents 
who are not Pedobaptists. They carry out 
the design of the ordinance, though the orcli- 



138 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

nance itself is not obeyed. But that is not the 
plan of the Bible, which requires that every- 
one under the covenant should receive the sign 
and seal of it. Grown persons could be in- 
structed in righteousness, and admitted, too, to 
membership in the Church without baptism, 
for that matter, if we would persistently set it 
aside. But the question is not what can be 
done, but what ought to be done, under the 
teaching of the Scriptures. Abraham could, 
perhaps, have trained his posterity according 
to his vows without applying the token of the 
covenant to them. They could not understand 
circumcision, and could possibly have been 
saved without it too. And yet he was strictly 
required to circumcise every male child at the 
age of eight days. The best reason in the 
world that could appear to Abraham was God's 
command to do it, and that is precisely the 
reason for baptizing any one, adults as well as 
children. Had it not been wise, God w r ould 
never have enjoined it; and we are not to go 
about to amend God's ways, but to keep them. 
But what good can a few drops of water 
sprinkled upon a little child do for it? Just 
as much as a great deal. A flood could do no 
more. And it is of as much service to an in- 
fant as to an adult. The use of water is sym- 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 139 

bolical, and indicates purity — purity of heart 
and of life. The real value, however, is not de- 
rived from the water applied in baptism which 
can never wash away sins, but from the cove- 
nant, or obligation, assumed by it, which contem- 
plates the real purity therein symbolized. The 
same w T as true of circumcision. " Circumcision 
verily profiteth, if thou keep the law; otherwise 
thy circumcision is made uncircumcision." 
Baptism is also profitable if the vow of faith 
and obedience be truly regarded; but without 
this it is simply a waste of w r ater. 

Some parents profess great solicitude lest 
their children might become dissatisfied in 
after life if they be baptized in infancy. This 
principle, if carried out, would leave a child 
without a name, without education, without a 
calling, and without any religion at all. Par- 
ents should remember that religion is not a 
mere matter of preference; that form of it be- 
ing the best that may best suit the natural 
tastes and social surroundings. 2viust ail be 
permitted to grow up without religious bias, 
and every one be left to choose whatsoever 
may seem good in his own eyes? Such false 
conservatism finds no favor in the Bible. Our 
duty to coming generations requires no such 
compromise. On the contrary, God makes it 



140 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

the duty of every parent to train his children 
in the fear of the Lord, and this duty none 
dare forget or lay aside. What may be the 
preferences of a child in any matter of moral 
obligation are not to be considered, but all 
those things that are judged to be for the 
best are to be lovingly and faithfully taught. 
There is no great danger of dissatisfaction 
if the proper care is bestowed. There is 
very great danger, not only of dissatisfaction, 
but of utter ruin, in case of neglect or indiffer- 
ence. 

I know that people sometimes fall under the 
influence of those who seek to disparage their 
baptism, and they frequently become bewil- 
dered about the mode and design of their bap- 
tism, and are unhappy for a time. But this is 
the result of not being instructed properly in those 
things, and it shows the necessity for early re- 
ligious education. Parents should teach their 
children not only how to pray and worship, but 
the doctrines of religion. The evidences in fa- 
vor of the mode, subjects, and design of bap- 
tism, according to our teaching, are very con- 
clusive, and we need not fear to risk them 
with our children when they are properly ex- 
plained. 

But let us suppose that baptism be delayed 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 141 

through fear of interfering with the choice of 
a child when it gets to be accountable. May 
not dissatisfaction arise on this very account 
too? It is possible that children, when they 
grow up, may be strong believers in infant 
baptism, and may not be immersionists either. 
There would then be regret that they were not 
baptized in infancy. Such instances have oc- 
curred, and may occur again. Children may 
be dissatisfied, no matter what is done for 
them; but that which is for their good must 
be done, regard it as they may. Their tastes, 
by nature, are wild and vicious, and the ob- 
ject of religious culture is to secure the heart 
against evil tastes. If parents would only think 
of it, it is a reproach to them for their chil- 
dren, when grown, to appear at the altars of 
the Church to be invested with the very rudi- 
ments of the faith. 

But it is said "the baptism of children 
brings an immense multitude of unregenerate 
people into the Church." I ask how? The 
answer is: "All children are unconverted, un- 
regenerate, and it is wrong to admit them to 
membership in the Church." This is a very 
specious objection, and weighs heavily in the 
minds of many. But let us note that this ob- 
jection is founded on the supposition that bap- 



142 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

tism is appointed to induct people into the Church. 
I stated in the outset that this is not true, ex- 
cept in a remote sense. I now repeat that the 
primary object of baptism is not to initiate per- 
sons to membership in the visible Church. Church- 
membership may follow or it may not. In the 
case of infants it does not. In a sort of gen- 
eral way they may be said to be in the Church, 
because they are the wards of it, and are to re- 
ceive the care and nurture of the Church; but 
they are not in any strict legal sense members 
of the Church. They are not numbered in the 
statistics, nor are they dealt with after the 
manner of members in full fellowship, until 
they of their own election assume the vows of 
Church-membership. The objection, therefore, 
is not well founded. But allowing that chil- 
dren by their baptism obtain some relation to 
the visible Church of Christ, the objection is 
still not good. It is affirmed that unregener- 
ate persons are thereby made members of the 
Church. This is a broad assumption that 
children are unregenerate and without moral 
fitness to be in the Church. This is an open 
question, and it is by no means certain that 
they are without this moral qualification. I 
shall not discuss the moral state of infants 
here. I will remark, however, that whatever the 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 



moral state of infants may be by virtue of nat- 
ural descent, they certainly share in the benefits 
of the atonement in common with all mankind. 
Jesus said: "Suffer little children to come unto 
me, and forbid them not; for of such is the king- 
dom of God. Verily, I say unto you, Whoso- 
ever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a 
little child, he shall not enter therein." It is 
not material whether the " kingdom of God" 
here means the heavenly state or the Church 
in this world. It must mean one or the other. 
In either case the argument is the same. If it 
means the heavenly state, then it is apparent 
that they are qualified for that, and dying will 
certainly be saved. If, therefore, their moral 
fitness is such as to insure them a place in that 
kingdom, surely it will not impair the purity 
of the Church here on earth to give them a lit- 
tle place in it. And if the "kingdom of God" 
means the Church on earth, then the* objection 
is utterly swept away, for it said, "Of such is 
the kingdom of God" 

I have now given what seems to me to be 
good and sufficient reasons for our faith and 
practice. I have tried to deal fairly in all at- 
tempts to state and answer objections to the 
doctrine. I have not uttered, nor felt like ut- 
tering, one single fiery sentence. And I have 



144 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

this to say in conclusion: There is not a single 
objection that can be alleged against the baptism 
of children that does not stand with equal force 
against their salvation. 



PART THIRD. 

MODE OF BAPTISM. 



10 



CHAPTER I. 

The Question Stated According to the Views op 
Leading Immersionists — The "Definite Act" 
Theory Most Indefinite. 



In every controversy it is all-important that 
the question at issue be clearly stated and well 
understood. For lack of this, controversies 
are prolonged. Where the line of difference 
is distinctly drawn, however, and kept steadily 
in view, the settlement is easy if the mind will 
only consent to the preponderance of testi- 
mony. 

There is great need of close definition in 
the discussion of the mode of baptism. Many 
suppose that the Church has disputed for cent- 
uries about the mere mode or manner of ad- 
ministering an ordinance; that the difference 
has been altogether about a form of service. 
This is a great mistake. Some, indeed, may 
have rested in this superficial view of the sub- 
ject, but all who understand the matter know 
that the difference is not so much one of mode 
or manner as it is about the substance and 
nature of the Christian ordinance itself. Ex- 
clusive immersionists hold that the word bap- 

(147) 



148 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

tism is one that denotes action, specific ac- 
tion, and specific action only. Every thing 
except the action employed is adventitious and 
accidental. The action, therefore, though it 
should include a variety of other things, is 
alone what constitutes baptism. The result 
of the action, whether it be a wetting, a dye- 
ing, a washing, a submergence, or something 
else, has nothing whatever to do with the mean- 
ing of the word. These are simply accompa- 
niments or consequences, and not baptism, nor 
any part of it. The entire validity is in the 
act, according to this theory. 

That we are correct in this statement of the 
immersion view, we submit the teaching of 
some of the most learned and prominent writ- 
ers of that school. 

Says the Rev. Alexander Campbell, in his 
" Christian System," page 55: " There are three 
things to be considered in baptism: 1. The 
action to be done. . . . Jesus commanded a 
certain character to be the subject of a certain 
action for a specific purpose." Again, in his 
debate with Mr. Eice, the same author says 
(page 55): "Baptizo — the Greek word for bap- 
tize — indicates a specific action, and consequent- 
ly can have but one meaning. For if a person 
or thing can be immersed in water, oil, milk, 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 149 

honey, sand, earth, debt, etc., it is a word in- 
dicating specific action, and specific action only n 
(italics mine). On page 84 of same debate, 
Mr. Campbell says: "The word baptizo has no 
more reference to water than it has to oil, or 
sand, or any thing else; it has reference to 
action only, and consequently can have but 
one meaning, which is most obvious, if the 
lexicons can be taken as authority. I again 
say there is neither water nor washing in the 
word baptizo." Mr. Campbell is good author- 
ity on this subject. His views are held in 
high esteem by the entire immersion world, 
But to corroborate this statement of the doc- 
trine, I also present the teaching of some of 
the most learned and prominent Baptist writ- 
ers on this subject. 

Dr. Alexander Carson says: "My position 
is that it \baptizo] always signifies to dip, never 
expressing any thing but mode." (Page 55.) 

Dr. B. Fuller, in his treatise on this subject, 
gave as a caption to his book, "The Act of Bap- 
tism" This is sufficient to express in a single 
sentence the entire teaching of the work. Bap- 
tism means action. 

Prof. M. P. Jewett says: "Baptizo, in the 
whole history of the Greek language, has but 
one meaning. It signifies to dip or immerse, 



150 THE TOKEN OP THE COVENANT. 

and never has any other meaning." (Page 13.) 
Again, he says: " In baptism we are command- 
ed to perform the act represented by the word 
baptizo" The reader will see that this ac- 
cords strictly with the definition, given by Dr. 
Campbell. 

Dr. J. J. Conant, a very learned Baptist au- 
thor, and a member of the American Commit- 
tee of the late Eevision of the Old Testament, 
thus expresses his view: "The Greek word 
baptize expresses nothing more than the act o* 
immersion. The act is performed on the as- 
senting believer, and this distinguishes it from 
all other acts of life." In his large work on 
this subject Dr. Conant very ably discusses the 
action of baptism, and leaves no doubt about 
his being in full accord with the immersion 
theory. 

Quotations from other writers might be giv- 
en, but it is useless to multiply them. These 
are sufficient to set forth the prevailing opin- 
ion of exclusive immersionists, and give a cor- 
rect idea of the question at issue. 

According to this theory Jesus commanded 
all men to submit to a certain definite action 
called baptism, the validity of which lies in 
the specific character of the act. If this be 
correct, it is nonsense to talk about the mode 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 151 

of baptism, as if baptism was one thing and 
the mode of administering it quite another 
thing. Under this theory baptism itself con- 
sists in nothing but mode. Any washing or 
purification, or other attending circumstance, 
has nothing to do with it beyond a mere co- 
incident or sequence. Should the baptizing 
element be poured or sprinkled upon the ob- 
ject, it is not baptism, no matter what the 
quantity may be, because it is not the action 
denoted by the word. Furthermore, the thing 
baptized must itself be the immediate subject 
of the action. A complete submergence, if it 
be brought about by pouring, is not baptism 
according to the immersion theory, because it 
is not the state of being submerged that con- 
stitutes baptism, but the process or action that 
secures it. Let me illustrate: Suppose an ob- 
ject be placed in a basin and water be poured 
in upon it until it is entirely enveloped. This 
may be an immersion, but according to the 
immersion theory it is not a baptism, for the 
reason that the object immersed was not the 
immediate subject of the act. The state of 
envelopment is not baptism; the object itself 
must be taken and put into the baptizing ele- 
ment, and thus made the immediate subject of 
the act, in order that the demands of this word 



152 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

be met. Hence, the positive assertion all along 
that baptism cannot by any possibility be per- 
formed by pouring. It is apparent at once 
that all idea of washing, cleansing, purifica- 
tion, and such like, are foreign to the subject, 
and wholly out of the question. 

This may be an unexpected presentation of 
the subject to many, but it is precisely the 
view held and taught by the large body of peo- 
ple who practice exclusive immersion. I have 
not only stated the doctrine correctly, but have 
stated it so plainly that every one may under- 
stand. I now ask that in the discussion of 
this subject this definition be kept steadily in 
mind; and I am sure that before we have gone 
half through the examination of the testimony 
in hand the utter untenableness of the theory 
will appear. 

If the word baptizo, which is the Greek word 
for baptize denotes specific action, and spe- 
cific action only, I inquire, What is that one 
specific action that constitutes baptism, and that 
we must all submit to? Surely if the word de- 
notes nothing but one well-defined, specific act, 
it will be an easy matter to answer this ques- 
tion. Any immersionist — even an unlearned 
one — ought to be able to do it in a moment of 
time. In fact, one would think from the high 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 153 

pretensions of exclusive immersionists that 
nothing was easier than an answer to this 
question; that reference to any Greek lexicon 
would settle the matter at once. But the task 
is not so easy after all; for, .strange to say, in 
the face of the emphatic assertion made over 
and over again that baptism denotes specific 
action only, no great advocate of the theory has 
yet been able to state, on good authority, the one 
specific act that constitutes baptism. Men have 
tried, but have just as often failed. In the 
attempt to settle this question, immersionists 
are themselves not agreed. Some say that 
baptizo means to dip, that it is the one specific 
act; others say that it means "immerse;" and 
others still that it means something else. The 
writer heard a very clever Baptist preacher 
once undertake to define baptizo beyond all 
doubt. His position was that it " invariably 
means to dip, or immerse, or plunge, or some- 
thing of that sort." This is a very fair sample 
of the efforts that have been made to point out 
some definite act as expressive of the meaning 
of baptizo. I ask why this confusion, this dif- 
ference, this want of unanimity on a subject 
so clearly and so definitely taught? 

Mr. Campbell, in his great debate with Mr. 
Bice, says, page 109: "They all [the lexicons], 



154 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

without one single exception, give 'dip,' 'im- 
merse,' 'sink,' or 'plunge ' synonymously ex- 
pressive of the true, proper, and primary 
signification of baptize." When we read Mr. 
Campbell's positive assertion, based, as he 
declared, on the testimony of all Greek litera- 
ture, that the word haptizo denotes specific ac- 
tion only, we were impatient to get on to the 
place where he would tell what that one spe- 
cific act might be. In the sentence just quot- 
ed, we have that wonderful disclosure, which 
is in fact just about as we expected; for, in- 
stead of presenting us with one specific act as 
the proper definition of the word baptize, he 
presents us with four — viz., dip, immerse, sink, 
plunge — and then says that these "denote the 
true, proper, and primary signification of the 
word." Now, I submit that this is decidedly 
unfair; for if through all Greek literature this 
word preserves the one idea of specific action 
only, and means nothing else, why not tell, 
without any circumlocution, what that act is? 
Why give four words that denote as many dif- 
ferent actions, and some of them no specific 
action at all? Mr. Campbell says it means 
" dip, immerse, sink, or plunge." These words 
differ in meaning very widely. To dip does 
not mean to plunge. The action implied is 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 155 

very different; while clip and immerse are very- 
far apart in signification. To say that a word 
denotes one specific act, and then give four or 
five different words expressive of as many ac- 
tions to define it, is simply to say nothing that 
is sensible. But Mr. Campbell no doubt did 
the best he could. It is true he says the words 
"dip," "immerse," etc., are synonymously ex- 
pressive of the true, proper, and primary sig- 
nification of the word baptizo. But every one 
knows that the words are not synonymous — 
that is, they do not express the same idea; for 
if they do, then why should more than one of 
them be employed in the same sentence and 
at the same time. This is no place for tau- 
tology. We want words that express the real 
meaning. If baptism denotes some one spe- 
cific act, the world should be informed with- 
out multiplicity of words what that act is. To 
come forth and say that it means this, that, or 
the other, will not answer. When we consider 
the exclusive teaching of immersionists, our 
demand that some one word be given as ex- 
pressive of the definite action of baptism is 
altogether reasonable. 

The vagueness of Mr. Campbell's definition 
is further apparent from what follows. The 
words "dip," "immerse," etc., he says, are syn- 



156 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

onymously expressive of the true, proper, and 
primary signification of baptize. Why use so 
many words to describe a thing that has but 
one definite meaning throughout all literature? 
Mr. Campbell's own language implies that 
some other meaning attaches to the word. His 
definition is, however, the proper and primary 
one. If immersionists would leave off all cir- 
cumlocution, and state in a single word what 
definite act is meant by baptism, it would 
greatly oblige the world, and do more than 
any other thing to settle this controversy. 

But it may be said that one word has by 
common consent been universally accepted by 
immersionists as the true and only definition 
of the word baptizo, and that is the word " im- 
merse." The leaders of the discussion will 
not affirm this, though it has by constant ap- 
peal and usage and general consent been uni- 
versally adopted by the immersion Churches 
as the one word expressive of their doctrine. 
Let us examine them, and see how this will 
do. 

The American Bible Union, under whose 
auspices the New Testament was revised and 
another version put forth, undertook to sub- 
stitute the word " immerse" for " baptize" in 
all ulaces where it occurs in the New Testa- 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 157 

ment. This, it was affirmed, is the one word 
that expresses the true idea of baptism. All 
other words fall short. Notwithstanding the 
time and scholarship that were devoted to that 
work, the attempt was too great. It was found 
that the word immerse could not be substituted 
for the word baptize in all places, though it 
might forcibly be made to do so in many. In 
Mark x. 38, 39, for example, they translate: 
"Are ye able to drink the cup that I drink, or 
to endure the immersion which I endure? And 
they said to him, We are able. Jesus said to 
them, Ye shall indeed drink the cup that I 
drink, and endure the c immersion ' which I 
endure.' 1 Here we have the word baptizo six; 
times, and four times out of the six it is trans- 
lated endure — only twice by immerse. The 
truth is, it was too absurd to say that " I have 
an immersion to be immersed with." Such an 
utterance w T oukl be nonsense. The utter im- 
possibility of carrying out the purpose to sup- 
plant our very appropriate word baptize was 
apparent; hence, for once at least, immerse 
was abandoned, and the word endure employed. 
I do not know that the lexicons mention en- 
dure as a definition of baptizo at all. The use 
of it, however, even in a single instance, is 
fatal to the "specific act" theory; for endure 



158 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

denotes state or condition, and not specific act 
at all. Endurance is not action. 

Another instance in the same revision equally 
palpable occurs in Luke xii. 50: "But I have 
an immersion to undergo ; and how am I strait- 
ened till it be accomplished ! " Here baptizo 
is translated undergo. I suppose it was select- 
ed under the stress because it sounds some- 
what like immersion. Again it was too bad to 
say, " I have an immersion to be immersed 
with," and so something like an approach to it 
had to be made. But it must be observed that 
undergo is a very different thing from " go un- 
der" We may indeed undergo an immersion 
— that is, submit to it — but we cannot " go un- 
der" an immersion. By the way, we see here 
again a clear abandonment of the " definite 
act" theory; for the word undergo does not 
imply any definite action, but simply state or 
condition. This failure is in keeping with the 
like failure of Dr. Campbell to select one word 
as definitive of the one specific meaning of 
baptizo. All the great leaders together have 
never been able to decide what word expresses 
the one definite act contained in baptize. If 
immerse has been by common consent adopted, 
it has been done in the face of difficulties, as 
we have seen, and in spite of the highest au- 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 159 

thority, as we shall see. There is this strange 
inconsistency in the adoption of the word im- 
merse to express the definite act of baptism, 
which immersionists seem generally to have 
overlooked: that the icord immerse itself is not a 
word that denotes definite action. To immerse 
expresses no definite act. It denotes very def- 
initely the state or condition of complete en- 
velopment; but the word itself does not even 
imply how the envelopment may be brought 
about. Let an immersion be secured in any 
way — by pouring, dipping, plunging — and the 
demand of the w r ord is fully met. As said 
above, the word " immersion " denotes state or 
condition — that is, a state of intusposiho?i, ,and 
not definite action. Some action may necessa- 
rily be implied in immersion, but the action is 
altogether secondary to the meaning of the 
word, and it may be either one thing or an- 
other. The action is lost in the idea of envel- 
opment. This all must see at once. Why, 
then, should a word be selected to express 
some definite act which really expresses no 
definite act? Here lies a great inconsistency, 
and it has done much to prolong the con- 
troversy on this subject. If the advocates 
of the immersion theory would adopt a word 
that does really denote specific action, the ut- 



160 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

ter untenableness of their doctrine would soon 
appear. On the contrary, if immersion is to 
be retained as the word most suitable to ex- 
press their idea of baptism, then the "one 
definite act" theory should, for the sake of 
consistency and truth, be at once abandoned. 
This, I dare say, would have been done long 
ago did not the abandonment of the definite 
act theory mean necessarily the abandonment 
of the entire immersion theory and the prac- 
tice under it; for such would be a tacit ac- 
knowledgment that baptism might possibly be 
performed in more ways than one. 

I dare say the great body of exclusive immer- 
sionists hold that immersion alone is baptism, 
without stopping to consider for a moment what 
act is implied in it, if any. To their minds the 
act is of very little consequence ; it is the immer- 
sion, the complete submergence in water, that 
they regard without any care or opinion as to 
how it is brought about. There are many, I 
say, that hold this view. Indeed, some of the 
leading controversialists on that side of the 
question have been forced to admit that bap- 
tism might be performed by pouring, provided 
enough teas poured to completely envelop the sub- 
ject. But this is a complete surrender of the 
doctrine of the immersion Churches. It leaves 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 161 



the question of mode entirely out of view, and 
resolves the discussion into one of a mere 
quantity of water, and nothing else. But this 
will never do. If baptism does not denote 
specific action only, then there need be no 
further discussion of the mode of baptism, 
inasmuch as the word is not one of mode, but 
of something else. 
11 



CHAPTER II. 

Testimony of the Lexicons. 



It is difficult to get people to understand just 
the difference in this discussion over the mode 
of baptism. It is no doubt generally believed 
that those who practice baptism by affusion en- 
tertain the same idea respecting pouring or 
sprinkling that immersionists do respecting 
the act of immersion, as they call it. But such 
is not the case. We do not affirm that the act 
of pouring or the act of sprinkling is baptism. 
On the contrary, we stoutly deny that baptism 
consists in any specific act. Our doctrine is 
that "baptism may be administered by pouring or 
by sprinkling; and that it may be understood 
that we seek no advantage in the statement of 
the question, I will add that while it may be 
administered by pouring or by sprinkling, it 
may be done so as to preclude all idea of com- 
plete submergence. If this proposition can be 
sustained, then the immersion theory cannot 
be true; and the practice of baptizing by 
pouring and by sprinkling will be vindi- 
cated. 

(1G2) 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 163 

Observe, I do not affirm that baptism must 
necessarily be performed by pouring or sprink- 
ling. I simply mean to affirm that it may be 
done that way, no great importance being at- 
tached to the manner of doing it. The action 
— by which we mean the mode — is altogether 
secondary; it is the result that is of prime im- 
portance. Baptism is not an action; it is the 
result of one, or cf a variety of actions. The 
New Testament idea of baptism is a washing, 
a cleansing, a purification, without reference 
to the specific manner of its performance. 
The action most convenient to secure the end 
meets the requirement of the word baptizo, 
whether it be dip, immerse, plunge, sink, pour, 
or something else. Hence, when we allow that 
immersion is baptism, we do it not because of 
any significance or value that we attach to the 
action in the matter, but because there is an 
application of water with the proper design. 
The increased quantity requisite to effect an 
immersion we do not consider invalidates the 
baptism. But we do not allow, and truth will 
not compel us, that immersion, effected either 
in this way or that, is the only baptism. It is 
sufficient to our purpose, and all that is needed 
to vindicate our faith and practice, to show 
that baptism may be performed by pouring or 



164 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 



by sprinkling. This I hope to be able to do 
beyond a peradventure. 

But before stating the argument in favor 
of our proposition, I will notice some of the 
reasons ordinarily employed by exclusive im- 
taersionists in favor of their doctrine. And 
first, we shall examine the lexicons. These 
are appealed to with great confidence, and we 
frequently hear it said — much to the dismay of 
some on our side of the question — that not one 
single lexicographer of any standing or repute 
gives "pour" or "sprinkle" as a proper defini- 
tion of the Greek word baptizo. 

Before looking at a single definition, let us 
pause and inquire what the issue is. It is af- 
firmed that baptizo denotes definite action, that 
it means one thing only, and is so specific that 
there need be no mistake. Keep this in mind. 
Now let us examine the lexicons, and see if 
this be true. 

Donnegan, who is good authority, defines bap- 
tizo: To immerse repeatedly into a liquid; to 
submerge; to soak thoroughly; to saturate. 
Hence to drench with wine. 

Met: To confound totally. 

Pickering, whose lexicon is generally pro- 
nounced to be one of the best, thus defines it: 
Baptizo: To dip, immerse, submerge, plunge, 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 165 



sink. In the New Testament : To wash, perform 
ablution, to cleanse; baptize; also to overwhelm 
one with any thing; to be prodigal toward one. 

Edward Robinson, in his Lexicon of the New 
Testament, defines baptizo: To dip in; to sink; 
to immerse. In the New Testament: To wash; 
to lave; to cleanse by washing. 

I might present the testimony of numerous 
other lexicographers, but it is unnecessary. 
They all accord in the main with what is here 
given. From these we find that the Greek 
word baptizo, instead of meaning one thing, and 
one thing only, as is so often affirmed, means 
several things; and instead of denoting defi- 
nite action, as immersionists most confidently 
affirm, it is most indefinite. The first of these 
witnesses says that the word means to sub- 
merge; to soak thoroughly ; to saturate. These 
are by no means synonymous. Each contains 
its own idea; and the impression made is that 
baptizo sometimes means one thing and some- 
times another. The lexicographer does his 
best to present the various senses in which he 
finds the word used by the best writers of the 
language; and we discover that no single En- 
glish word is equal to the emergency. It takes 
several. Hence, baptizo means not one thing 
only, but several things. 



166 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

Furthermore, these witnesses are equally 
against the idea of "definite action." They 
say "dip, immerse, plunge, sink, soak, over* 
whelm, trash, purify" etc. Now one or two of 
these words may denote specific action, say 
"dip," and "plunge," and perhaps overwhelm, 
but each word expresses a very different action 
from the others; while the remaining words in 
the definition express no definite action at all, 
but simply state or condition. The entire cat- 
egory is employed, not because of some defi- 
nite action that they denote, but because of the 
many senses in which this famous word is 
used. 

If one definite action is to be acknowledged 
as baptism alone, which, I inquire, among the 
many given in definition of the word, shall it 
be ? This ought certainly to be settled by the 
advocates of exclusive immersion, before the 
demand is made on all the rest of the world to 
accept their view. The force of this is often 
evaded by the remark that the^rs^ or primary 
meaning should invariably be accepted. I re- 
ply that the dictionaries differ somewhat as to 
the primary meaning of the word. Besides, if 
they were agreed, we are by no means bound 
to accept the primary meaning of a word sim- 
ply because it is such, for many of the most 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 167 

frequent and important words in the New Tes- 
tament have put off their primary signification 
and come to be used in a widely different sense. 
This is especially true with respect to words 
which are now used to denote spiritual and re- 
ligious things that originally contained no such 
idea. Instances need not be given. The bare 
statement of the fact is enough. 

A very specious argument in favor of im- 
mersion is sometimes made on what they are 
pleased to call the general meaning of the word. 
A correct rule of interpretation is "that the 
general meaning of a word should always be 
accepted unless the circumstances forbid its 
use, or the mind of the writer be known to be 
against it." It is assumed, of course, in the ar- 
gument that the general or ordinary meaning 
of the word baptizo is immerse, and therefore 
it should be accepted to the exclusion of all 
others. This argument, quite plausible indeed, 
has been employed with considerable weight 
in favor of the doctrine of immersion. To 
many minds it seems to be the very thing, and 
I doubt not that for this very reason, more than 
any other, the great majority of exclusive im- 
mersionists so heartily cling to their faith and 
practice. It is the general meaning, they say, 
and therefore it cannot be wrong. At any rate, 



168 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

it is on the safe side. But this argument, 
powerful as it is with the unlearned and the 
masses, is an utter abandonment of the very 
foundation principle of the immersion theory, 
which is that baptism must and can denote but 
one thing, and that that one thing is a specie ac- 
tion. Now to affirm such as this, and then turn 
and insist on the general meaning of the word, 
is out of the question. It is simply a desertion 
of one's doctrine; for & general meaning implies 
other and perhaps various meanings; at any 
rate, it implies some special meaning. If not, 
why talk about a general meaning? There can 
be no general meaning, in the strict sense, to a 
word which has but one specific meaning 
throughout all literature. If baptizo means one 
thing, say so; but do n't turn, and then in the 
next breath make an argument in favor of its 
general meaning. The argument itself, instead 
of being in support of the immersion theory, 
is against it. 

We admit that baptizo sometimes means im- 
merse — in fact, it very generally means it in 
classic Greek; but we deny that this definition 
should therefore be recognized as the only one, 
or that it should be accepted at all when the 
word is used to denote the Christian ordinance. 
According to the standard rule of interpreta- 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 169 

tion given above, it is lawful that the ordinary 
and obvious meaning of a word be sometimes 
laid aside for one that is specific and direct. 
For if the circumstances be against the com- 
mon use, then, instead of the general meaning, 
we are to accept that which is more apparent. 
Now this is precisely what is true of the Greek 
word baptizo; for, admitting immersion to be 
its general or primary meaning in classic use, 
it will be found on inquiry that the word has 
taken on quite a different meaning in the New 
Testament. When applied to the Christian 
institute, it neither denotes definite action nor 
complete submergence, but a simple washing, 
or ceremonial purification. All the circum- 
stances connected with this religious use of the 
word are against the prime idea of complete 
submergence or interposition. And if any 
thing else is needed, the minds of the New 
Testament writers can be shown to be wholly 
at variance from the immersion doctrine, 
which shall be done in due time. 

But it may be said that while the lexicons 
do not define the word baptizo to be any one 
specific act to the exclusion of all others, yet 
they all agree that the idea of submergence or 
complete envelopment is involved, no matter 
what action be implied. I again reply that this 



170 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

is a complete surrender of the modal idea of 
baptism. If, therefore, the mode, or manner, 
of administering the rite be surrendered there 
is nothing left to be discussed. Immersionists, 
having thus abandoned their faith, should 
abandon their practice, or, at least, be more 
charitable and conservative toward those who 
are pleased to baptize in another way. Under 
this admission, too, the truth of our prop- 
osition must be acknowledged; for if baptism 
means nothing but the simple state of immer- 
sion, without regard to the way in which it is 
brought about, then certainly baptism could be 
done by pouring, inasmuch as an immersion 
could be effected in that way. This, I trust, I 
shall be able to show; and to show, too, that 
baptism does not necessarily mean complete 
submergence. There are instances where noth- 
ing but complete submergence could be meant, 
but there are others where the word baptize is 
used to denote nothing beyond a partial or 
even a slight wetting. 

It is often affirmed, and with great assurance, 
that not a single lexicon, of the many that have 
been written, gives "pour," or "sprinkle," as 
a proper definition of the word baptizo. The 
air of triumph with which this declaration is 
made has caused great anxiety to many who 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 171 

have doubted the high claims of exclusive 
ininiersionists. Occasionally a timid disciple 
becomes dissatisfied with having been "chris- 
tened," and seeks relief for the conscience un- 
der the "liquid wave." The best relief, howev- 
er, would be to admit more light to the under- 
standing. But I do not say this by way of re- 
proach. 

In answer, then, to the above, I want to say, and 
be understood in making the concession, that so 
far as my knowledge goes the statement that 
no well-authenticated lexicon defined baptizo to 
pour or to sprinkle is correct. Some of the 
lexicons, whose definitions are given in Latin, 
may, by a free and liberal translation, be made 
to favor "pour" and "sprinkle;" but the in- 
stances are rare, and the translation doubtful. 
I am aware that a good many learned men on 
my side of the question think otherwise. Old 
and rusty volumes, some of them written in 
strange tongues, have been ransacked to find 
pour or sprinkle as definitive of the meaning 
of this word, but with little success. This 
failure, however, does not affect the truth of 
the doctrine of those who believe in baptism 
by affusion. We have never affirmed, and do 
not now affirm, that baptizo means to "pour" or 
to "sprinkle" No one who understands the 



172 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

nature of the controversy will affirm it, be- 
cause it is not our teaching. The truth is, the 
word does not mean to pour, nor does it mean to 
sprinkle. All the authorities are against it, 
and that, too, for the very reason that both these 
ivorcls denote specific action, and specific action 
onJij. I know of no words that denote definite 
action more clearly than do pour and sprinkle. 
If, therefore, baptizo meant to pour or to sprin- 
kle, iWould be a word denoting specific action as 
immersionistsjiave affirmed of it, and their the- 
ory would be correct, only the action would be 
different from what it is. claimed to be. But 
inasmuch as this Greek word is generic and 
not specific, it cannot be defined by any such 
word as "pour " or "sprinkle." 

There is a singular inconsistency to be ob- 
served on both sides of this controversy, out of 
which has sprung, no doubt, much of the heat 
and passion of the discussion. Exclusive im- 
mersionists hold that baptism means " definite 
action only," and then employ a word (im- 
merse) to denote that definite action which is 
not specific at all. On the other hand, those 
who believe in baptism by affusion hold that 
baptism does not mean definite action, but 
simple state or condition— result — and then de- 
fine it by words that do not mean state or con- 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 173 

dition, but definite action. If these two sides 
could, somehow, manage to exchange terms, it 
would help matters mightily. At any rate, both 
should seek to be consistent; and if they would 
only do so, there would soon come an end to 
what has long seemed to be an interminable 
controversy. 

The trouble has been that many of our con- 
troversialists, fired with the spirit of debate, 
have affirmed too much on either side. If the 
Baptists have been unable to point out a word 
denoting some specific action as the proper def- 
inition of baptism, so have we been unable to 
establish the claim that the word means to 
" pour," or to " sprinkle." And we have failed 
in the attempt for the very reasons that the 
Baptists have failed, viz. : the word does not de- 
note specific action, and therefore does not 
mean to pour. But while this is true, baptism 
means something that may be accomplished ei- 
ther by pouring or by sprinkling. It means to 
wash, to soak, to wet, to cleanse, to purify, and 
often to immerse. But any and all of these 
may be done by pouring. The difference, how- 
ever, between the process and the result must 
always be kept in view. Baptizo looks to re- 
sults, and not to processes. Only keep this in 
mind, and there need be no anxiety or trouble 



174 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

because the lexicons do not give "pour" and 
"sprinkle" as among the definitions of this 
word. 

Some of the favorite lexicographers, such as 
Robinson, Wahl, Greenfield, and others, make 
special mention that the New Testament use 
of the word baptizo is "wash" or "purify" 
Judging from the circumstances under which 
it is used, we conclude that this is really the 
scriptural meaning of the word. No matter 
what was its original and primitive meaning, 
this word, under the law of development, soon 
came in its religious use to denote a washing 
or ceremonial purification, conveying the idea 
of cleanliness. In proof of this, I cite Luke 
xi. 38: "And when the Pharisee saw it, he mar- 
veled that he had not first washed [ebaptisthe] 
before dinner." Here the word is properly 
translated washed. The kind of washing that 
Jesus omitted, and that exposed him to the 
censure of the Pharisee, may be seen by con- 
sulting Mark vii. 3: "For the Pharisees, and 
all the Jews, except they ivash their hands oft 
[nipsontai], eat not, holding the traditions of the 
elders." I suppose no one will deny that it 
was the disregard by our Lord of this cus- 
tom of washing before dinner that caused the 
Pharisee to marvel. It was not intended to 



MODI} OF BAPTI8K. 175 



cleanse the hands literally, but was a ceremo- 
nial purification observed by all the Jews, un- 
der the tradition of the elders. The mode or 
manner of the performance is not in point 
now. I simply call attention to the fact that 
that which Luke styles a baptism Mark de- 
scribes as nothing more than the " washing of 
the hands." That they both allude to the same 
custom is evident. Here, then, we have proof 
positive that in one instance, at least, the word 
baptizo is used in the sense of wash, without 
reference to the action by which it is done. 

The American members of the late revis- 
ion, in their appendix to the Revised Version, 
render Luke xii. 38: "Bathed himself." Why 
they preferred this rendering I cannot imagine, 
unless it was a sort of compromise with some 
immersion members of the committee. The 
word no doubt will admit of this translation 
sometimes, but it certainly will not in this in- 
stance, for it was not the custom of the Phari- 
sees and all the Jews to " bathe themselves " 
before eating. They had their baths, no doubt, 
for the sake of cleanliness and comfort, but 
this custom of washing before meals was one 
of ceremonial purification. It was a washing 
of the hands, that the tradition of the elders 
might not be violated. And then in verse 



176 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

fourth, Mark himself calls this baptism: "And 
when they come from the market, except they 
baptize they eat not." This was nothing differ- 
ent from the washing mentioned in the pre- 
ceding verse, but the same thing; and it is 
called a baptism. 

Take another instance to show that the New 
Testament idea of baptism is purification (John 
iii. 25): "Then there arose a question between 
some of John's disciples and the Jews about 
purifying" The matter of controversy here 
alluded to is stated in chapter iv. 1: "When 
therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees 
had heard that Jesus made and baptized more 
disciples than John," etc. The Pharisees 
sought to vex John's disciples, by reminding 
them that Jesus had baptized more disciples 
than their Master. And this practice of bap- 
tizing by John and^ the disciples of Jesus is 
called purifying, as it is said "there arose a 
question about purifying" which was about bap- 
tizing. Is it not clear, therefore, that the word 
is used in the New Testament in the sense of 
purification? But this could not be true, if 
the meaning was one of definite action only. 

Of the best lexical authority, then, we may 
say this is the sum: 

1. The word baptizo does not denote one thing 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 177 

only, inasmuch as all the lexicons give it sev- 
eral meanings. 

2. It does not denote "definite action," for 
then it could, of course, mean but one thing. 
Its demand may be met in one way or in many 
ways. 

3. As it does not denote definite action, it 
does not mean to pour nor to sprinkle, which 
words are most definite in their signification. 

4. The word primarily denotes immersion; 
that is, a state of submergence, or complete en- 
velopment, tvithoat specific reference to the mode 
or manner by which it is brought about. 

5. Under the law of natural development it 
has come to mean something different from 
immersion, such as wash, cleanse, purify, which 
may be accomplished in any way most con- 
venient and easy, the idea of mode being left 
out of the question. This is especially true 
with respect to the religious use of the word. 

I say the preceding is the sum of the lexical 
authority on this subject, hence the truth of 
our proposition that "baptism may be per- 
formed by pouring or by sprinkling." 
12 



CHAPTER III. 

Instances of Baptism in the New Testament — 
John's Baptism — Baptism of Jesus. 



Haying examined the testimony of the lexi- 
cons as to the meaning of the word baptizo, I 
shall next give attention to the passages in the 
New Testament supposed to favor the idea of 
immersion. One of the strongest, and which 
is regarded by immersionists as entirely con- 
clusive, is that which relates to John's bap- 
tism. This is the first instance of the use of 
the w r ord in the New Testament; and while it 
is not the same in design as baptism under the 
authority of Christ, yet the mode in which either 
was administered is good authority in deter- 
mining the meaning of the word baptizo. 

Matthew iii. 5, 6: "Then went out to him 
Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region 
round about Jordan, and were baptized of him 
in Jordan, confessing their sins," Or, as Mark 
reports it, chapter i. 5: "And were all baptized 
of him in the river of Jordan." This, I admit, 
is to an ordinary reader very strong testimony 
in favor of the supposition that John's bap- 
(178) 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 179 

tism was by immersion; and therefore it de- 
serves the more diligent inquiry. 

Allow me to remark in passing that the con- 
ception that John the Baptist took the people 
down into the river of Jordan, and put them 
entirely under the water when he baptized 
them, is greatly aided by the example of mod- 
ern practice. To those situated in life as many 
people are now, being told beforehand that 
this is the meaning of the words, and unable 
themselves to form a correct judgment of the 
full force and meaning of the language of the 
text, it seems very evident that they were all 
immersed; while to others not familiar with 
the custom of immersing persons in this way, 
and relying on the sense of the narrative as 
it is in the original tongue, no such idea would 
occur. 

There are only three things spoken of John's 
baptism : 

1. The design of it. " Unto repentance." 

2. The element employed. " I indeed bap- 
tize you with water "—mentioned in contradis- 
tinction to the Holy Spirit with which Jesus 
should baptize. 

3. The places tvhere he baptized. These 
were "at the river of Jordan;" or, as Saint 
John more definitely states, at "Bethabara be- 



180 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT 

yond the Jordan/' and at " Enon near to Sa- 
lim." 

Not a word or a syllable is said in any place 
in the New Testament about the mode or man- 
ner in which John did baptize. The proof 
that he baptized in this way or that, except so 
far as the meaning of the word baptizo itself 
determines the matter, is wholly inferential. 
The only reason that one has for supposing 
that John practiced immersion is the statement 
that "they were baptized of him in the Jor- 
dan'' This is regarded by some, however, as 
quite conclusive. 

The whole argument depends on the mean- 
ing of the small particle "in" — "in the river 
of Jordan." This is the rendering of the Greek 
particle en. It is assumed — and the current 
translation favors the assumption — that this 
preposition means in, in the sense of into; that 
John in baptizing put the people into the water. 
If the object of the historian had been to de- 
scribe the manner of John's baptism, the prep- 
osition might possibly be made to bear this 
construction, though in composition the prep- 
osition eis would no doubt have been employed. 
But this was not the purpose of the sacred 
writer, the only object being to give some ac- 
count of the place where John did baptize. 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 181 

The preposition en, therefore, is appropriately- 
used, for it denotes, primarily, place— rest in a 
place; and, as Bobinson says, "is spoken of 
every thing which is conceived as being, re- 
maining, taking place, within some definite 
space or limits." Hence, according to the En- 
glish idiom, it is more properly translated at, 
when used with direct reference to place. Or, 
if it be rendered in, it should be understood 
in the sense of at. In such a place — that is, 
at that place. Now, if it had been said that 
all the people were baptized at the river of 
Jordan, the exact truth would have been ex- 
pressed, and no impression made that they w r ere 
actually taken and put one by one into the 
water. 

The same preposition — en — is used with ref- 
erence to Bethabara and Enon: "en Bethab- 
ara " and "en Enon," which means simply in 
or at those places. When it is said that John 
was baptizing "en Bethabara beyond Jordan," 
no idea whatever of the mode of his baptism 
is conveyed. The mind receives no such im- 
pression, the idea of place alone being con- 
veyed. The same is true of Enon near to Sa- 
lim, where John was baptizing. But when the 
very same form of expression is employed 
with reference to the Jordan, and with the 



182 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

same intention of designating the place where 
John baptized, the sentence is construed into 
a prima facie evidence that John did immerse 
the people in the river. 

It is said, John i. 28: "These things were 
done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John 
was baptizing." This was a small village situ- 
ated on the banks of the river Jordan, and be- 
yond from the land of Palestine. It is alto- 
gether probable that Matthew, in speaking of 
the baptism of the multitudes at the Jordan, 
had reference to what took place at Bethabara. 
That town was at the river Jordan — or on it, as 
might be said — and corresponds exactly with 
the truth of his statement. Besides, the gen- 
eral statement seems to indicate this as the 
place where John did the principal part of his 
baptizing. He says: "Then went out to him 
Jerusalem, and all Jaclea, and all the region 
round about Jordan, and were baptized of him 
in Jordan." If these multitudes were not 
baptized at Bethabara, as we have supposed, 
but at some other place, then it is difficult to 
reconcile the statement that John baptized in 
that village with the facts in the case; for 
there would, it seems, be nobody left to be 
baptized there. The conclusion is pretty evi- 
dent, therefore, that Matthew refers to the 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 



work and ministry of John at that place. At 
any rate, the clear intention is to designate 
the place where this occurred, and not the 
manner of the occurrence. 

This Bethabara is, no doubt, the very place 
where Jesus was baptized. On one occasion 
John's disciples said to him (John iii. 26): 
" Eabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, 
to whom thou bear est witness, behold, the same 
baptizeth," etc. John, as every one will re- 
member, bore witness, or record, to Christ at 
the time of his baptism, as he himself said: 
" I know him not, but he that sent me to bap- 
tize with water, the same said to me, Upon 
whom thou seest the Spirit descending, and 
remaining on him, the same is he; . . . and I 
saw and bare record." This token of the Mes- 
siahship of Jesus appeared to John at the 
time he baptized him; and he saw the sign 
and bore the witness. This must have taken 
place beyond the Jordan; for we are informed 
that he was with John there, and that John 
bore witness to him there. The only public, 
official witness of John to Christ that we have 
any record of was given at the time that Jesus 
was baptized, when the heavens opened and 
the Spirit came down upon him. Then John 
cried, and said, " This is he." This testimony 



184 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

of John to Christ, given beyond the Jordan, 
must have been at Bethabara, for there John 
was baptizing. This further confirms the be- 
lief that the multitudes mentioned by Mat- 
thew were also baptized at Bethabara beyond 
the Jordan. 

Great stress is laid on the statement that 
" Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straight- 
way out of the wetter^ The expression "out 
of " w r ould imply that Jesus had been in the 
water, which of course is interpreted to mean 
entire immersion. If he really went down 
into the water — or, rather, had been put into it 
by John — then it would be altogether proper 
to say that he "came up out'' of it. But we 
have no evidence beyond what is implied in 
the statement that he came up "out of the 
water " that Jesus was ever in the water. And 
this inference is very doubtful. The Revised 
Version gives a far more correct translation of 
the sentence, which is: "And Jesus, when he 
was baptized, went up strightway from the 
water;" which does not imply necessarily that 
he was ever in the water, but that he was at 
the brink of the stream. The correctness of 
the rendering of the Revised Version, I reck- 
on, will not be called in question, being fully 
attested by the meaning of the preposition 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 185 

and the circumstances attending the case. 
And even if it be allowed that Jesus "came 
out" of the water, it must be admitted that 
his ascent from it was no part of his baptism, 
for this took place after he was baptized. 
AY hat specific act John performed in behalf 
of Jesus, therefore, is still a question of doubt, 
and must be determined by the meaning of the 
word baptize. 

It may be considered as certain, however, 
that Jesus himself was baptized after the same 
manner that John baptized the multitudes. 
And the fact that it was done at the Jordan, 
or where there was abundance of water, is not 
to be construed into the idea that all were im- 
mersed. The immense numbers that flocked 
to John's ministry from all parts of the coun- 
try and from the towns is quite sufficient to 
account for his resorting to a river's brink to 
administer the ordinance unto them. An im- 
passioned orator such as John was, in any town 
or district, without a church or a synagogue, 
or even without a lodging, crowded by multi- 
tudes eager to submit to his demands and be 
baptized, would do, in all likelihood, just as 
John did — resort to the river's brink, both as 
a matter of convenience and haste. No mat- 
ter after what manner his baptism was to be 



186 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

administered, whether by total immersion, co- 
pious affusion, or by aspersion, the easiest 
and most natural thing under the circum- 
stances was for John to do precisely what he 
did — resort to the only abundant supply of 
water at hand that was free of charge. 

In connection with this we must consider 
the utter impracticability of immersing such 
multitudes as John baptized. People seldom 
stop to consider what this involves. However 
plausible a thing may seem, yet if it be unrea- 
sonable or wholly impracticable, assent should 
be withheld. It is a very easy and a very nice 
thing to take a few persons already provided 
with changes of raiment and resort with them 
to a convenient stream or a well-tempered bap- 
tistry at the appointed time and immerse them. 
But where no such conveniences exist, and no 
previous notice has been given, and thousands 
are to be baptized by one individual alone,, it 
becomes a grave matter. The fact is, it ap- 
pears not only impracticable, but impossible 
that John should have taken the people up 
one at a time and put them into the river Jor- 
dan. The circumstances are all against such a 
supposition. 

1. The prevailing idea of baptism in the Jew- 
ish mind was unfavorable to it. According to 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 187 

the best evidence, they knew nothing of bap- 
tism as a religions rite by immersion. They 
had their baths for cleanliness and as a prep- 
aration for religious service, but the idea of 
a total immersion for the sake of the totality 
of it, or for any other reason, never existed 
among them. It was always a bath, a wash- 
ing, performed not with the idea of being cov- 
ered by the water, but with the single view of 
purification. Their lustrations, or religious 
purifications, called baptisms, were invariably 
performed by pouring or by sprinkling, as I 
shall abundantly show in the course of this 
argument. Take one instance. Hebrews ix. 
18, 19: "Whereupon neither the first testa- 
ment was dedicated without blood. For when 
Moses had spoken every precept to all the peo- 
ple according to the law, he took the blood of 
calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet 
wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the booh 
and all the people." Moses caused the law of 
the covenant to be read in the hearing of all 
the people. When they gave their assent to 
it, and engaged to do the things written in the 
book — that is, assumed the covenant — he took 
the blood, etc., and sprinMedhoiYi the book and 
all the people. This was simply confirmatory 
of the engagement. The blood sprinkled on 



188 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

the book pledged the Almighty to the perform- 
ance of his part o£ the covenant, and likewise 
the sprinkling of the people committed them 
formally to the performance of what they had 
engaged to do. True, this is not called a bap- 
tism here, but it was the dedicatory rite at the 
time, and meant the sealing of an obligation 
which is precisely the office of baptism. All 
such ceremonies were called, under the Jewish 
economy, baptisms (Heb. ix. 10), and were in- 
variably performed by pouring or sprinkling. 
John's baptism was another religious purifica- 
tion, with the like of which they all must have 
been familiar. He urged the people to repent 
and make ready to receive the Messiah. As 
many as engaged to do so were consecrated to 
the performance of that duty. Hence, the 
form and manner of sealing the engagement 
must have been simply such as they were ac- 
customed to in their religious uses. It is to 
be presumed, then, t'nat no foreign or strange 
mode would be employed by John when he 
came to baptize 

2. It must be remembered, too, that this bap- 
tizing was done under circumstances entirely 
inconvenient for immersing the people. It 
was in the open air, by a river, and on multi- 
tudes beyond all precedent, including both 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 189 

sexes without discrimination, who came from 
towns and cities and country, many of them 
from a distance, drawn by the fiery exhortation 
of this ascetic preacher. It is not to be pre- 
sumed that they were supplied with changes 
of raiment necessary to an immersion in water, 
and it is repugnant to all ideas of propriety to 
suppose for a moment that they were put into 
the water naked, or without suitable provision 
for dry clothes. 

3. And then again we must consider the 
possibilities in the case. It seems hardly pos- 
sible that John could, single-handed and alone, 
have performed the wonderful task of immers- 
ing such numbers in the time allotted. The 
precise time occupied by John's public minis- 
try is doubtful. Some suppose it to have been 
not more than six months. It is pretty cer- 
tain that it did not exceed nine months. The 
number said to have been baptized by John 
could not have been immersed by him one by 
one in that time. It is said that all Jerusa- 
lem, and all Judea, and all the region round 
about the Jordan, were baptized by him. This 
includes a great many. Jerusalem itself was 
a very large city, while the land of Judea — 
which here means Palestine — was crowded 
with population; and then all the region round 



190 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

about the Jordan beyond from Palestine is in- 
cluded also. To take the words literally, and 
count the entire population mentioned, will 
give a tremendous multitude. The exact sta- 
tistics are not necessary. To approximate 
the truth is sufficient. Says Josephus in his 
"Wars," Book II., Ch. xiv., Sec 3: "While 
Cestius Gallus was president of the province 
of Syria nobody durst so much as send an em- 
bassage to him against Floras; but when he 
was come to Jerusalem upon the approach of 
the feast of unleavened bread, the people came 
about him not fewer than three millions; these 
besought him to commiserate the calamities 
of their nation, and cried out upon Floras as 
the bane of their nation." These three mill- 
ions of course did not include all the popula- 
tion of Palestine at the time; they were only, 
we shall say, a considerable part. From this, 
however, we can form some estimate of the 
numbers that lived there. John, it is said, 
baptized all Jerusalem and all Judea, includ- 
ing scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees. If the 
words be taken literally, many millions must 
be included. Let us suppose, however, that 
he baptized only one million — which is a low 
estimate — and that his ministry extended 
through nine months, which would be two 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 191 

hundred and seventy days. To accomplish this 
herculean task, then, it would require that 
John should have immersed more than three 
thousand and seven hundred daily through the 
entire course of his ministry. Besides, he 
must "have stood in the water waist deep 
through all this time. John's health and phys- 
ical strength will not admit of the supposition. 
I repeat, then, that it seems hardly within the 
range of possibility that John's baptism was 
an immersion. So that, taking all the circum- 
stances into the account, the presumption is 
that John baptized either by pouring or by 
sprinkling. 

I have dwelt thus long on this instance be- 
cause it is relied on more than almost any 
other in the New Testament to prove the doc- 
trine. What we ask is a calm consideration 
of the whole testimony, and Ave have no fear 
for the truth of our proposition. 



CHAPTER IV. 

Baptism op the Eunuch — Eed Sea Baptism — Bap- 
tized into Christ— Baptism not a Burial. 



Acts viii. 36-38: "And as they went on their 
way, they came unto a certain water; and the 
eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth 
hinder me to be baptized? . . . And he com- 
manded the chariot to stand still; and they 
went down both into the water, both Philip 
and the eunuch; and he baptized him." 

The baptism of the eunuch by Philip is 
thought to be entirely conclusive in favor of 
immersion., To many minds there seems to 
be no doubt whatever that this man was put 
entirely under the water. This simple narra- 
tive has done as much or more to prejudice 
the minds of ordinary readers in favor of the 
practice of immersion than all the learned 
talk about bapto and baptizo. "They went 
down both into the water." That is clear. 
And if they went down into the water, the ob- 
ject must have been the immersion of the eu- 
nuch; for, otherwise, why should they have 
gone down into it? 

There are several things to be considered, 

(192) 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 193 

however, befoie a correct judgment can be 
formed of this case. Let us not jump to con- 
clusions hastily. Losing sight of the current 
interpretation of the text, let us take an im- 
partial view of the facts and circumstances in 
the case. 

In the first place, when it said " they went 
down both into the water," it must not be in- 
ferred that the descent was necessarily into the 
water. It must be remembered that Philip 
had, a little while before, gone up into the char- 
iot, and was sitting with the eunuch, and rid- 
ing along the public highway, when — suddenly, 
it seems — they came " unto a certain water." 
By going down, then, nothing more can be 
meant than that they went down or descended 
from the place where they were sitting in the 
chariot to the water. This does not necessa- 
rily imply that they went into the water at all. 
They simply went unto it. The preposition 
(eis) may be legitimately construed "to" or 
" unto " as well as "into." In fact, when it de- 
notes motion toward a place, as in this instance, 
its proper rendering is unto. So that the very 
language in its proper meaning conveys the 
idea that they went down unto the water, and 
not into it. It was just as necessary for them 

to go down from the chariot to the water that 
19 



194 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

the eunuch might be baptized one way as an- 
other. If it was to be administered by pour- 
ing or sprinkling, they would be obliged to 
descend to the water. And then not only the 
convenience both of Philip and the eunuch 
required it, but the respect and reverence due 
the occasion required that they should alight 
and go down from the place where they were 
sitting to attend to such a solemn duty. Their 
descent to the water, therefore, contributes but 
a very slight presumption in favor of immer- 
sion; in fact, none at all. 

No geography that we know of gives any 
account of a stream in the region between 
Jerusalem and Gaza sufficiently large to im- 
merse a man in. Philip was directed to go 
down to a place which was called a " desert." 
This was an uninhabited country; but if it had 
been watered by any such stream as immer- 
sionists would have us believe, it would likely 
have been not. a sterile region, but one of the 
most fruitful regions. There was water, but 
it must have been either a well, such as they 
use in that country, or a small stream that is- 
sued from a spring or small fountain. 

And then again, the baptism of the eunuch 
on that day was a very sudden and unexpected 
thing; so that it is not at all probable that 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 195 

lie and Philip were provided with changes of 
raiment for such a business as a total im- 
mersion; and they certainly would not have 
stripped naked on the public highway. Such 
a procedure as that would be repugnant to the 
proprieties of true religion. 

Moreover, this eunuch had been "to Jerusa- 
lem for to worship," which leads us to suppose 
that he was a devout man, and familiar w T ith 
the customs and ritual of the Jews. He was 
himself perhaps an Israelite that lived in a 
foreign country, having charge of the treas- 
ures of the Queen of Ethiopia. A Gentile 
and a heathen would not likely have gone to 
Jerusalem for to worship. His idea of bap- 
tism, therefore, must have been that which was 
prevalent among the Israelites, for he mani- 
fested no surprise at the requirement that he 
should be baptized, but proposed baptism him- 
self on their first approach to water: " See, 
here is water, what doth hinder me to be bap- 
tized?" As soon as the conditions were ex- 
plained to him, he gave his assent at once, and 
descended with Philip to the water. But the 
Jewish baptisms were not immersions, but 
were invariably performed by pouring or by 
sprinkling. 

And then it must be constantly borne in 



196 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

mind that the " going into the water," and the 
" coming up out of it" — allowing that such a 
thing occurred — did not constitute any part of 
the baptism of the eunuch. If they went into 
the water at all, the descent was no part of 
the baptism; but after that was done, then it 
is said "he baptized him." Now, the ques- 
tion is, What did Philip do to the eunuch? 
What act did he perform in his behalf? Did 
he put him under the water, or did he do 
something else? The record is, " He baptized 
him." Immersionists assume that he com- 
pletely submerged the eunuch; but it is mere 
assumption. That is the question in dispute, 
and that needs to be proved. It will not do 
simply to presume or to assume that he did 
so and so; we want plain, positive proof of the 
matter. The only evidence in the case is the 
meaning of the word baptizo — "he baptized 
him." The circumstances attending the bap- 
tism of the eunuch do not determine the mode 
of his baptism; for, as has been said, their de- 
scent to the water and ascent from it, being no 
part of the baptism, cannot determine just 
whether the eunuch was immersed or whether 
Philip poured or sprinkled the water upon 
him. It is as legitimate to assume that he 
baptized him by pouring or by sprinkling as 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 197 

it is to assume that he immersed him. The 
" specific act" in the case cannot be determined 
by the narration or the circumstances. The 
circumstances taken together, however, afford 
a strong presumption against immersion. If 
going into the water was the baptism, or any 
part of it, then they were both baptized; for 
" both Philip and the eunuch w r ent in." And 
not only so, but in this event the eunuch 
baptized himself by going in. Immersionists 
themselves being judges, the eunuch was only 
partially immersed by Philip. Philip simply 
completed what the candidate had carried for- 
ward considerably. Call this quibbling if you 
please; but it is necessary to show the utter 
inconsistency of the doctrine that baptism de- 
notes " definite action," and that no one is bap- 
tized until he is made the entire subject of 
this " definite act." 

First Corinthians x. 1, 2: " Moreover, breth- 
ren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, 
how that all our fathers were under the cloud, 
and all passed through the sea; and w r ere all 
baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the 
sea." 

It is remarkable to see the ingenuity with 
which every allusion to baptism is converted 



198 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

into an undoubted case of immersion. If facts 
are not at hand, fancies are employed, and 
with many seem to serve jnst as valuable a 
purpose. In this way a most ingenious argu- 
ment is made on a rare construction of the 
passage quoted above. This is supposed to be 
a clear case of immersion. The water con- 
gealed into solid walls on the sides, and the 
cloud stretched across above, the whole form- 
ing a sort of tunnel through which the people 
passed, is constituted one vast baptistry where 
they were all immersed. Their immersion 
consisted, of course, in being completely sur- 
rounded — enveloped as it were — by the water 
on the sides and the cloud overhead. This is 
very fine imagery; but what we want is fact, 
not fancy. 

No one would ever infer from the original 
narrative in Exodus that there was any bap- 
tism of the children of Israel at the Red Sea 
at all. Moses does not mention it. The facts 
are reported in full; but nothing that took 
place on that occasion is called by him a bap- 
tism. Paul, speaking, a long time afterward, 
however, of these things, says, " They were all 
baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the 
sea." And, as said above, an ingenious eye dis- 
cerns at once that they were all immersed in 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 199 

the sea. Unfortunately for this splendid con- 
ception, the facts are against it. There is lit- 
tle, if any, proof that the walls of water on 
the sides of the passage through the sea were 
high enough to justify this figure, or that any 
such tunnel as has been imagined was ever 
formed. There were six hundred thousand men, 
besides women and children, and also their 
cattle, that had to pass over. The whole num- 
ber of people is estimated at about three mill- 
ions. These had to cross in a single night the 
distance of twelve miles, which is supposed to 
be the width of the sea at that place. Now, a 
passage wide enough to admit of this must 
have been very much wider than an ordi- 
nary lane or street. They could not march 
in a column of two or four abreast. The pas- 
sage is supposed to have been several miles 
wide. 

The cloud spoken of was that which was 
to the Israelites a " pillar of fire by night and 
a pillar of cloud by day." And it is not at all 
certain that they were under the cloud at the 
same time that they were "in the sea." It is 
said that the cloud " stood behind them, and it 
came between the camp of the Egyptians and the 
camp of Israel, ... so that the one came not 
near the other all night." 



200 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

The Israelites were indeed under the cloud, 
for it towered above them and illuminated the 
whole passage through the sea; but it certainly 
did not settle across the passage from wall to 
wall like a canopy, and shut them all under. 
On the contrary, the cloud is said to have 
"stood behind them" — that is, in the rear of 
their column. And yet, being in the heavens 
above them, they were all "under the cloud." 
This scheme to secure an immersion is there- 
fore wholly imaginary. 

But suppose for a moment that the entire 
host was inclosed by the waters on the sides 
and the cloud above, and a sort of immersion 
effected. What then becomes of the " definite 
act " theory? Baptism, we are told, denotes 
"definite action" — not state or condition, even 
though that state be one of complete envelop- 
ment. It is not in point, therefore, to present 
an instance of envelopment, or being com- 
pletely surrounded; it is necessary to show 
that the Israelites were themselves the imme- 
diate subjects of a definite act. Remember 
that it is the mode, the manner of doing a thing, 
that we are discussing, and not the state or 
condition when it is done. Immersionists 
claim that baptism invariably consists in mode, 
action, and not in a state of being immersed. 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 201 

To present a case of complete envelopment, 
therefore, without respect to how it came so, is 
foreign to the issue. But if the Israelites were 
the subjects of some "specific action," or in- 
deed ot any action at all, then I ask what was 
that action, and who performed it? There 
can be but one answer to this question. No 
" specific action " was performed in behalf of 
the Israelites on this occasion. They simply 
marched under the command of Moses across 
the .sea and on dry land; aod yet they were 
all baptized unto Moses in the cloud, or under 
the cloud, and in the sea. Nothing could be 
more fatal to the immersion theory than this 
instance; for if the being in the sea be admitted 
to be the baptism spoken of, it contributes 
nothing to the doctrine in question. As soon 
as it is admitted that a mere state of immer- 
sion is baptism rather than the act of immers- 
ing, then it must be admitted that, as mode 
has nothing to do with it, baptism may be per- 
formed by pouring, or by any one of a multi- 
tude of acts. 

The truth is, it does not appear that in 
this instance there was any literal baptism 
at all; but while they were undei the cloud 
and in the sea, they were baptized unto Mo- 
ses. The apostle institutes an analogy be- 



202 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

tween the baptism or the Israelites unto Moses 
and the baptism of believers unto Christ. His 
argument is to show that those th#t are once 
baptized unto Christ may fall away " from their 
own steadfastness;" for said he, "All our fa- 
thers were baptized unto Moses in the cloud 
and in the sea; but with many of them God 
was not well pleased, for they were overthrown 
in the wilderness." The word baptism here 
seems to be used in the sense of consecration ; 
they were all consecrated unto Moses — that is, 
committed to his care and leadership. The 
marvelous deliverance wrought for them at 
the sea, and by the cloud which protected them 
from their enemies all night, was the means of 
giving them wholly into the hands of Moses; 
and hence they are said to have been " bap- 
tized unto " him. No formal baptism appears. 
Until that time the whole multitude had been 
under the direct leadership of the Almighty. 
Moses did nothing until he was specially di- 
rected of God. The last great miracle of in- 
terference in their behalf was the opening of 
the sea before them that they might escape 
the wrath of the Egyptians. This seems to 
have satisfied them that Moses, their leader, 
was under a divine commission: "And Israel 
saw the great work which the Lord did upon 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 203 

the Egyptians; and the people feared the Lord, 
and believed the Lord, and his servant Moses." 
This great wonder which the Lord did caused 
the people to believe at once in God, and to 
recognize the authority of Moses. Hence, 
they are said to have been s ' baptized unto " 
him — committed to his authority and leader- 
ship, to be conducted through the wilderness. 
This seems to be about the meaning of this 
baptism, so far as I can see; and, as said be- 
fore, there does not appear to have been any 
literal baptism administered to them at all, 
much less a complete immersion. God him- 
self, by miraculous interposition, committed 
them to Moses. 

Eomans vi. 4: " Therefore we are buried 
with him by baptism unto death." 

Considerable use has been made by immer- 
sionists of Mr. Wesley's note on this text. He 
says: "Allusion is no doubt made to the an- 
cient manner of baptizing by immersion." 
The inference is that Mr. Wesley believed that 
immersion was the ancient mode of baptism, 
and that this passage made allusion to the cus- 
tom of putting people under the water to bap- 
tize them. Mr. Wesley was not an exclusive 
immersionist, though he allowed that baptism 



204 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

might be administered in that way. Pouring 
and sprinkling were equally valid to liis mind, 
and far more practicable, and quite as ancient 
too, for that matter; for in his note on Colos- 
sians ii. 12, he says: "The ancient manner of 
baptizing by immersion is manifestly alluded 
to here, as the other manner of baptizing or pour- 
ing of water is in Hebrews x. 22 " If Mr. Wes- 
ley's testimony as to the antiquity of immer- 
sion is good, his testimony as to the antiquity 
of pouring is good too. But after all, he may 
have been mistaken in supposing that any al- 
lusion was made in this text to the mode of 
baptism. The apostle does not attempt to de- 
fine the mode of baptism by describing it as 
a burial. True, he says we are buried by bap- 
tism; but baptism, instead of being itself the 
burial, is presented rather as the agent or in- 
strument of the burial. This burial we are not 
to understand as literal or physical, as though 
it was in earth or water. It is altogether fig- 
urative and mystical — buried "into death" not 
into water. We can much better understand 
the character of the burial if we consider it 
in connection with the death necessarily im- 
plied in it; for the burial must correspond ex- 
actly with the character of the death. If the 
death be physical, the burial must be physical; 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 205 

but if the death be figurative and mystical, so 
must the burial be figurative and mystical. 
Says the apostle: "How shall we that are dead 
to sin live any longer therein?" This shows 
the character of the death implied. Now, 
when the obligation is to be enforced that no 
man who has once been baptized unto Christ, 
or consecrated unto him, can, with the least 
consistency, live a moment in sin, the apostle, 
preserving the idea of death, extends the fig- 
ure, and says: "Therefore we are buried with 
him by baptism into death." The object is to 
show that we now and henceforth are to be 
oblivious to all sin, since in being buried w T ith 
Christ the work of our consecration to him is 
complete. 

Instead of there being any analogy or likeness 
between the burial and resurrection of Jesus 
Christ and the manner of our baptism, as some 
suppose, the analogy is altogether between 
Christ's death and burial and resurrection and 
our death to sin and resurrection unto right- 
eousness : " That like as Christ was raised from 
the dead by the glory of the Father, even so 
w r e also should walk in newness of life. For 
if we have been planted together in the like- 
ness of his death, we shall be also in the like- 
ness of his resurrection." But we do not con- 



206 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

form to the likeness of his death in the mode 
of our baptism, but in a far deeper and more 
significant and real sense — that is, in our death 
to sin. We die unto the world as he did. 
Nothing whatever can be obtained from this 
text in favor of immersion or any other mode 
of baptism. Baptism may indicate the time 
of our consecration unto Christ, because it is 
the formal means of our being invested with 
his life and character, but it does not by its 
mode indicate any burial. It is not itself a 
burial. 

But suppose we allow what immersionists 
assume to be the meaning of this text. Then 
it does not support their theory, for the word 
burial does not denote " definite action " any 
more than immersion does. To be buried is 
to be covered out of sight, without reference to 
how it is done. The process of burial has noth- 
ing to do with it. When a thing is buried, it 
is buried, be it done this way or that. The 
usual method is to conceal the object by pour- 
ing or heaping the earth upon it. So, after all, 
the theory gains no strength here. 



Colossians ii. 12: " Buried with him in bap- 
tism, wherein also ye are risen with him 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 207 

through the faith of the operation of God, 
who hath raised him from the dead." 

What has been said of Romans vi. 4 is true 
also of this text, for they seem to be exactly 
parallel, the same language being employed. 
As in that instance, so it is true here that the 
burial corresponds with the character of the 
death, which is of course not literal, but fig- 
urative. It is a little more definite here, J iow- 
ever, that the resurrection spoken of is not an 
emergence from water, inasmuch as it is said, 
"We are risen with him through the faith of 
the operation of God, tcho hath raised him from 
the dead." If faith is the means, then the res- 
urrection is unto righteousness. 

I have stated the most that can be said in 
favor of immersion — to wit, the testimony of 
the lexicons, the instances of baptism record- 
ed in the New Testament, and those scriptures 
that are supposed to teach the doctrine, either 
directly or by allusion. Aside from this there 
is no proof, except occasional instances in 
Greek literature where the word baptizo is 
used to denote immersion. We have seen how 
inconclusive this testimony is. Even the dic- 
tionaries do not support the immersion theory. 
It is acknowledged that divers instances occur 
where the word denotes an entire submerg- 



208 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

ence, generally, however, without respect to 
the mode or manner by which it is accom- 
plished. Such instances are to no purpose in 
the discussion, unless it can be proved that 
this Greek word means immerse, and nothing 
but immerse — that is, the act of immersing. 
If a hundred instances of undoubted immer- 
sion could be presented, and then one instance 
should appear where the word evidently meant 
something else, it would be fatal to the doc- 
trine, which is that this word means one defi- 
nite thing through all Greek literature. 

The mistake of immersionists is in being 
exclusive. No one denies that their practice 
is at least justified or allowable under the orig- 
inal, primitive meaning of the word, though 
their " definite act" theory is not. But while 
immersion may be allowed by the Greek word, 
baptism by pouring or sprinkling is also valid. 
When one affirms that he prefers immersion, 
then he simply asserts his privilege of choice; 
but when he affirms that nothing else but im- 
mersion is baptism, he puts himself in array 
against all authority and proof. If it were 
necessary, we could admit all that is claimed 
for John's baptism, and in fact all the evi- 
dence relied on to prove immersion, and then 
support our proposition, because it can be 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 209 



demonstrated beyond the possibility of doubt 
that baptism may be performed by pouring 
and by sprinkling. This we hope to show in 
the course of what follows. 



14 



CHAPTER V. 

Proofs in Favor of Pouring and Sprinkling. 



Woeds are the signs of our ideas. We use 
words to express what we think. For lack of 
variety, the same word is sometimes employed 
to denote different shades of meaning. In 
this w r ay words occasionally lay aside their 
primitive meaning altogether and assume a 
signification that is entirely new. This is usu- 
ally the result of long and constant use. If 
baptize originally meant to dip, or to immerse 
in any way, it is not confined to that meaning 
now, nor has it been for centuries past. In 
process of time it assumed a meaning very dif- 
ferent from the specific act of dipping, if it 
ever had that, and a state of complete sub- 
mergence. We find from the best authorities 
that it means to drench, to wash, to wet, and, in 
fact, means a variety of things very close akin 
to these. The New Testament idea of bap- 
tism is a "washing," a ceremonial purification. 
This corresponds precisely with the definition 
given of the word by the most approved lexi- 
cographers, and is in strict harmony with the 
natural growth of language. It is not implied, 
(210) 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 211 

however, that the whole body should be washed, 
much less put under water. The purpose is 
not to cleanse. The washing is symbolical, 
and denotes inward and moral purity. That 
quantity of the purifying element that will 
serve this purpose is sufficient, and the manner 
of applying it is not important. To illustrate: 
Jesus, that he might teach his disciples a les- 
son of humility and subservience, proceeded 
on one occasion to wash their feet. Peter de- 
clined to receive so menial a service from his 
Lord. Jesus replied, "If I wash thee not, 
thou hast no part with me." Peter then re- 
quested that not only his feet but that his 
hands and his head also might be washed. Je- 
sus answered, " He that is washed needeth not 
save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit" I 
am aware that this was not baptism, nor is it 
called a baptism; nevertheless, it was a wash- 
ing, and very properly illustrates how the 
washing of a part of the body may symbolize 
the cleansing of the whole. Peter was as 
clean when his feet had been washed as if the 
whole body had been immersed, for the object 
was not to remove the impurities of the body 
but to be the symbol of a great lesson. The 
same may be said of Christian baptism. li- 
the object were to literally wash the body for 



212 THE TOKEN OE THE COVENANT. 

the sake of its physical cleansing, then every 
part should be washed, and an immersion 
might be insisted on; but as baptism is "not 
the putting away of the filth of the flesh but 
the answer of a good conscience toward God," 
only that quantity of water is needful that ap- 
propriately symbolizes the cleansing and re- 
newing of the Holy Ghost. 

That this is the true signification of the word 
baptize in its religious use I think can easily 
be made to appear. 

No matter what the dictionaries may define 
the meaning of a w T ord to be its true significa- 
tion must be determined by its use by the best 
writers and speakers of the language. A word 
taken in its connection in a sentence or dis- 
course may be understood better than by any 
attempt given at its definition. It is for this 
reason that frequent appeals are made to the 
writers of the Greek language in order to ob- 
tain a clear and precise understanding of the 
word baptizo. Here is the final resort, and we 
must abide by the testimony of those who best 
understood their own language. 

1 shall not weary the reader with quotations 
from what is called the classical writings of 
the Greek language though many instances 
might be produced in support of our argu- 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 213 

ment, but will rely on the use of the word as 
it occurs in the sacred writings. This will be 
found to answer every purpose, and quite suf- 
ficient to settle the controversy. 

The word bapto, from which baptize is con- 
fessedly derived, is first in order. This, it is 
affirmed, contains the root idea of "dip," which 
is transmitted invariably through the whole 
family of derivatives; so that wherever we find 
the syllable bap there is also the idea of dip. 
If this is so it is difficult to see any reason why 
there should ever have been any derivatives at 
all. The one word with its single idea in its 
various inflections, it seems, would be quite 
sufficient to express all that need be expressed 
about the one act — dip. That the word bapto 
itself, however, does not invariably mean to 
"clip," or immerse, will appear from its use in 
sundry instances. Some centuries before Christ 
we find this word as a substantive applied to a 
class of people to distinguish them. They 
were called Baptce, or Baptists. These were 
the priests of Cotytto, the goddess of lewd- 
ness. Says Anthon in his " Classical Diction- 
ary:" "The name is derived from bapto, to 
'tynge' or 'dye,' from their painting their 
cheeks and staining the parts around the eye 
like women." Eupolis, a writer of the old 



214 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

comedy, born about 446 B.C., rebuked with 
great severity the profligacy and effeminacy of 
his age in a comedy entitled " Baptai." These 
priests, these licentious dyers of the cheek, 
the advocates of sensualism, suggested, no 
doubt, the significant title. This shows that 
the prominent idea of bapto in that age was 
not one of specific action of any kind, but that 
the word meant to "dye" or "stain," without 
respect to the process by which it was done; 
hence the appellative Baptce, or Baptists, to 
denote those w 7 ho used coloring on their cheeks 
to give a glow of sensualism. All idea of im- 
mersion is excluded here. But if the word 
meant nothing but to "dip," it is difficult to 
see how it could be used so generally to con- 
vey the idea of " staining" or "dyeing." 

In the Septuagint version of the Old Testa- 
ment, made about 320 B.C., we find bapto in 
use also. It occurs in Daniel iv. 33: "And his 
body was ivel [ebaphe] with the dews of heav- 
en." The translation wet in our English Bible 
is no doubt correct, for that is precisely what 
happened to the king, who was driven out to 
feed on the pastures with the cattle and to be 
exposed to the dews of the night. Now, when 
this idea of wetting one with the dews of heav- 
en came to be expressed in the Greek tongue, 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 215 

the word ebaphe was used. He was "wet" 
(bapted, so to speak) by the dews. If the word 
bapto is used properly here — and I suppose we 
cannot doubt that it is — it carries neither the 
idea of dipping nor immersion. It is easy for 
any one to imagine what took place with the 
king. His body was wet, and no doubt pro- 
fusely, but it was done by the distillation of tlie 
dews upon it. The king himself was not the 
subject of an act of any kind, nor was he im- 
mersed. He was simply "wet," and by the 
dews coming upon him. This is as clear as 
can be. There is no force of reasoning that 
can torture it so as to make it in the least fa- 
vorable to immersion. 

A feeble attempt at evasion is sometimes 
made by saying that the body of the king was 
as wet as if it had been dipped into the dews. 
That may be. We have no remark to make 
against the very profuse wetting by the dew, 
which may have been quite as complete as if 
the man had been dipped. Nevertheless, the 
fact remains that he was not dipped and that 
he was not immersed, but that he was " wet," 
which must have been done by the distillation 
of the dews upon him, as has been said. 

This word bapto occurs again in Eev. xix. 
13: "And he was clothed with a vesture dipped 



216 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

in blood" (bebammenon). The word bebamme- 
non, here translated "dipped," is in the Be- 
vised Version rendered " sprinkled," which is 
no doubt correct; for, no matter what the an- 
cient meaning of the word may have been, it 
is very properly rendered " sprinkled " in this 
instance. " Stained ' would have been better, 
however, for the object is to describe the con- 
dition of the vesture as " stained " or " dyed " 
with blood, and not to tell at all how it was 
done — whether dipped or sprinkled. It is im- 
possible, though, that the vesture .should have 
been dipped in blood. It was stained with it, 
but this staining was not done by dipping. 
Allusion is no doubt made here to that sub- 
lime prophecy in Isaiah lxiii., of which this is 
the evident fulfillment. There Christ is rep- 
resented as treading the great wine-press and 
trampling his enemies in fury under his feet, 
and it is said of him: "Their blood shall be 
sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain 
all my raiment" In the apocalyptic vision he 
appeared to his servant " clothed with a vest- 
ure stained with blood." Any one that will 
consider the metaphor a moment must see that 
the idea contained in the word is to "stain," 
and that the process was not by dipping the 
vesture into the blood, but by " spattering " or 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 217 

sprinkling the blood upon it while riding in 
furious conquest over his enemies. It was for 
this reason, no doubt, that the revisers trans- 
late the word " sprinkle." Here, then, we see 
again that all idea of specific action and total 
immersion is out of the question. If bapto 
is the root of baptizo, and entails its meaning 
on its derivative, I think it will appear that 
baptism may be performed by sprinkling. 

The word bapto, however, is never used in 
the New Testament to denote the Christian 
ordinance. We discuss it because it is sup- 
posed to give complexion to the meaning of 
baptizo, its derivative — the word transferred to 
our tongue, and Anglicized "baptize." We 
have seen that the root word does not invari- 
ably denote specific action, and that it does not 
necessarily mean an immersion, but is satisfied 
with a "wetting" or "staining," and that too 
by sprinkling. Testimony equally conclusive, 
if not more so, can be adduced to show that 
baptizo itself — the word for baptize — is not a 
word denoting specific action, and that it does 
not require a total immersion. Take the fol- 
lowing examples: 

BAPTISM OF X A AM AX. 
"Then went he down, and dipped himself 



218 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

seven times in Jordan, according to the saying 
of the man of God." (2 Kings v. 14.) 

The Hebrew word here translated " dipped " 
is in the Septuagint version rendered ebaptisato 
— he baptized himself. It must be remem- 
bered that our English version is not a trans- 
lation of the Greek text, but of the original 
Hebrew; hence "dipped" in our version is not 
a translation of the Greek word at all. 

The question to be determined is, whether 
Naaman the Syrian did actually dip himself 
in the Jordan, or wash himself as the proph- 
et directed. The latter seems to be the real 
truth in the case. In the first place, he was 
not commanded to go and dip himself in the 
river. The language is, "Go and wash i» Jor- 
dan seven times." The Greek word is lonsai, 
which implies no definite action nor total im- 
mersion, but the idea of purification. No 
matter by what process it is done, the de- 
mand of the word is met when the body is 
washed. But it is said that he baptized himself 
according to the saying of the man of God. I 
suppose this means that he observed strictly 
the directions of the prophet. If he did, then 
in all likelihood he did nothing more than 
wash, for that was what he was commanded to 
do. The words wash given in command and 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 219 

baptize spoken of as the act of obedience are 
evidently used here synonymously. This is 
precisely what we have affirmed all along: the 
ruling idea in baptize being that of a washing 
or cleansing, and not one of specific action. 

It is not at all probable that the entire sur- 
face of Naaman's body was affected with the 
leprosy. Only a small eruption, it seems, had 
made its appearance, for he said: "I thought 
he y/ould surely come out, and stand, and call 
on the name of his God, and strike his hand 
over the place.'" AVhen the prophet commanded 
him to go and wash, therefore, the expectation 
was that Naaman would go and wash the part 
affected. Why should he wash his whole body? 
It w r as not through any sanitary property of 
the water that he was to be healed, but in obe- 
dience to the command of the prophet; and 
the natural inference is that in the absence of 
more specific directions he would simply wash 
the place that needed to be cured. Jesus, 
when he wanted to heal a blind man, said: 
"Go wash in the pool of Siloam. And he went 
and trashed, and came seeing." That is to say, 
the man went and washed his eyes, and thus se- 
cured his sight. This was all that was expect- 
ed of him. Still, the command was not "Go 
wash your eyes," but "Go wash in the pool." 



220 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

The man understood it. So when Naaman 
was commanded to go and wash we are doubt- 
less to understand that he w T as simply directed 
to wash the eruption, and not necessarily the 
whole body. 

Even if we suppose this command to have 
been given according to the law of Moses for 
the cleansing of a leper, no total immersion 
would be required. That law was (Lev. xiv. 
8): "And he that is to be cleansed shall wash 
his clothes, and shave off all his hair, and wash 
himself in water." No definite act is prescribed 
— such as dip or plunge — and none is even im- 
plied; nor is the idea of total immersion im- 
plied. The leper might, indeed, go into the 
water and bathe himself, but the object was to 
wash, to get clean; and the only advantage of 
getting into the water was to get the free use 
of it and the better to effect the cleansing. 
Not one man in a thousand who takes a bath 
totally immerses himself. Every presumption, 
therefore, is against' the supposition that Naa- 
man plunged into the Jordan seven times be- 
fore he was healed. He washed himself. 

BAPTISM FEOM A DEAD BODY. 
Sirach xxxiv. 30: "Being baptized [bapti- 
zomenos] from a dead body and touching it 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 221 

again, what profit is there in his cleans- 
ing?" 

This is a quotation from the apochryphal 
book of Sirach, and refers, no doubt, to the law 
or Moses that required every one that touched 
a dead body to submit to a ceremonial purifi- 
cation. Num. xix. 16-19: "And whosoever 
toucheth one that is slain with a sword in the 
open field, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or 
a grave, shall be unclean seven days. And for 
an unclean person they shall take of the ashes 
of the burnt heifer of purification for sin, and 
running water shall be put thereto in a vessel ; 
and a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip 
it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, 
and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons 
that were there, and upon him that touched a 
bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave; and 
the clean person shall sprinkle upon the un- 
clean on the third day, and on the seventh day; 
and on the seventh day he shall purify himself, 
and wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, 
and shall be clean at even." 

One thus cleansed is said to be "baptized 
from a dead body;" that is, from the evil effects 
of having touched one. This ceremonial cleans- 
ing consisted, as Ave have seen, in the sprink- 
ling of a mixture of the ashes of a red heifer 



222 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

and pure water upon the defiled person; and 
one thus purified is said to have been bap- 
tized. 

If the word baptize is not misapplied when 
used to describe this sort of thing — and we dare 
not say that it is — then it is very evident that 
baptism may be performed by sprinkling, for 
that was precisely the process of purifying a 
man from a dead body. To be sure the un- 
clean person had, on the seventh day, to " wash 
his clothes and bathe himself in water," but 
that was not the ceremony that cleansed or pu- 
rified him from the contamination of a dead 
body. The man that sprinkled the water upon 
him had to wash his clothes too. So that the 
bath in the conclusion of the service was sim- 
ply a prescription for the cleanliness and de- 
cency of the persons. That which really effected 
the cleansing was the application of the red 
heifer ashes and water which was strictly en- 
joined to be sprinkled upon the unclean. And 
if one declined or refused to do this, "that soul 
should be cut off from Israel because the water 
of separation teas not sprinkled upon him." 
Nothing is plainer than that the purification 
was by sprinkling. And if so, then it follows 
that " baptism from a dead body" is done by 
sprinkling. 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 223 

BAPTISM OF JUDITH. 

Judith xii. 5-7: "And the servants of Holo- 
fernes brought her into the tent, and she slept 
until midnight; and she arose at the morning 
watch. And she sent to Holofernes, saying, 
Let my lord now command that thy handmaid 
may go out for prayer. And Holofernes com- 
manded his body-guard not to hinder her; and 
she remained in the tent three days, and went 
out nightly into the valley of Bethulia and 
baptized herself \_ebaptizeto~\ in the camp at the 
fountain of icater" 

The state of the case is this: Nebuchadono- 
sor, King of Syria 3 made war against Israel. 
An army under command of Holofernes came 
up against Bethulia, a city where the Israelites 
were in camp. Holofernes, seeing that the 
supply of water was derived from some springs 
outside the walls of the city, cut the aqueduct, 
and besieged the city, taking possession of the 
springs. When the Israelites were greatly 
straitened a fair Jewess undertook to deliver 
her people. She left Bethulia by night and 
fell into the hands of the Syrians ostensibly 
for protection, but with the real purpose to gain 
an audience with the general, and by strategy 
overpower him with her charms that she might 
finally destroy him. Holofernes received her 



224 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

kindly and, being impressed with her story and 
her beauty, " commanded his body-guard not 
to hinder her," but to give her the freedom of 
the camp. She went out nightly — that is, out 
from the tent, and baptized "in tlie camp at the 
fountain" which was one of the springs. This 
baptism was performed in connection with her 
religious devotions. The place was a spring 
which was in the camp. Now there is not the 
least probability that this woman immersed 
herself in the spring. It is said in the narra- 
tive (chapter vii. 10): "And he [Holof ernes] 
placed all round about a hundred men at every 
spring." We cannot imagine for a moment that 
a woman that observed such scrupulous neat- 
ness in her person and attire at this time for a 
specific purpose would be so immodest as to 
immerse herself clothing and all in one of these 
springs. And it is simply preposterous to sup- 
pose that she would lay aside her raiment in the 
presence of an army of soldiers and do such a 
thing. Besides, these springs were the main 
supply of water for the army, both for drink- 
ing and other purposes, and it is not to be pre- 
sumed that the guard would permit any one to 
strip off and bathe in one of the springs. It is 
evident therefore that Judith did nothing more 
than purify herself at one of the fountains, 



MODE OF BAPTISM, 225 

which, as every one must know, amounted to 
nothing more among the Jews than an ablution, 
which was performed by pouring or sprink- 
ling. 

BAPTISM BY INIQUITY. 

Isaiah xxi. 4: "My heart panted; fea) fulness 
affrighted me; the night of my pleasure hath he 
turned into fear unto me." Septuagint Version* 
"My heart wanders; lawlessness baptizes me" 
(anomia me baptizei). Lexicographers tell us 
that baptizo very frequently means to stupefy, 
to make drunh % to temper, to overwhelm, to com- 
pletely subdue. Ot course no reference is 
made to the way or manner in which these 
things are done, but to the state or condition 
described by the words. A piece of metal is 
tempered by the dropping of a fluid upon it, 
or by plunging it in a fluid, or by some other 
process; but it is not the dropping nor the 
plunging that is called a baptism, but the ef- 
fect upon the metal. A man may be made 
drunk by taking a few drops of a drug; again, 
it is the effect of the drug upon him. One may 
be entirely confounded by questions, or com- 
pletely overwhelmed with grief; but in every 
instance it is the state of being that is denoted 
by the word baptizo, and not the process. The 
example under consideration is very much in 
15 



226 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

point. " Lawlessness baptizes me." The proph- 
et was not made the subject of any definite act. 
Rumors of war and of the violence of invad- 
ing forces overwhelmed him with fear and 
astonishment. The state of mind produced in 
him is what is meant. Our English Version 
very properly renders it "affrighted." One 
can see at a glance that this is directly antago- 
nistic to the immersion theory. 

Another example of this use of the word oc- 
curs in the New Testament where our Lord's 
sufferings are mentioned as a baptism. "I 
have a baptism to be baptized with." Com- 
ment is hardly necessary. All acknowledge 
that this refers to the final agony of the Son 
of God. There is no possible means by which 
to resolve this baptism of suffering into one of 
mode. Jesus speaks of drinking the "cup" — 
the bitter cup of death — and the draught was 
one of such agony that he was greatly strait- 
ened until it was accomplished. 

DIVEES BAPTISMS. 

Heb. ix. 10: " Which stood only in meats and 
drinks, and divers washings \diaphorois baptis- 
mois~\ and carnal ordinances, imposed on them 
until the time of reformation." 

The conjunction "and" before "carnal ordi- 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 227 

nances" is an interpolation, made we know not 
how, and should be omitted. It does not ap- 
pear in the Revised Version. As it now reads 
"carnal ordinances" are something additional 
to the "meats, drinks, and baptisms;" where- 
as the words are intended only to be exegetical 
or explanatory of those things. The object is 
to inform us that the meats, drinks, and divers 
baptisms were themselves carnal ordinances. 
The Jewish economy therefore stood in meats 
and drinks, and divers baptisms, and it is wor- 
thy of note — for that is the point that I wish 
the reader to keep in mind — that it stood only 
in these things. No matter what entered into 
the ritual of the Jewish service, it was either a 
meat — that is, something to be eaten — or a 
drink, or a baptism for some purpose or other 
— divers baptisms, or, as it is translated, " divers 
washings." 

Now if one will take the pains to read the 
law of Moses that prescribes the various puri- 
fications by water and blood, he will find that 
instead of so many immersions, there were no 
immersions at all. In all that economy, that 
which sanctified and purified was invariably 
done by pouring or sprinkling. Take an in- 
stance. Heb. ix. 13 : " For if the blood of bulls 
and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprink- 



223 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

ling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of 
the flesh," etc. That this was one of the car- 
nal ordinances there can be no doubt, for it 
sanctified to the purification of the flesh." It 
was therefore a part of the Jewish economy, 
which stood only in three things — meats, drinks, 
and divers baptisms. But this sprinkling of 
the blood upon the unclean was not a "meat," 
and it was not a "drink." Does it not follow, 
therefore, that it was a baptism ? There was 
nothing else for it to be. But this was done 
by sprinkling, says the apostle. I therefore 
conclude, by the authority of the inspired writ- 
er, that baptism may be performed by sprink- 
ling. Such proof as this amounts to mathe- 
matical precision. And yet we hear people say 
that there is not a word in the New Testament, 
not a ivord y in favor of baptism by sprinkling. 

JEWISH BAPTISM. 

Mark vii. 1-4: "Then came together unto 
him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, 
which came from Jerusalem. And when they 
saw some of his disciples eat bread with de- 
filed, that is to say, with unwashen hands, they 
found fault. For the Pharisees, and all the 
Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat 
not, holding the tradition of the elders. 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 229 

And when they come from the market, except 
they wash [baptisontai^\, they eat not. And 
many other things there be, which they have 
received to hold, as the washing [baptismous~\ 
of cups, and pots, brazen vessels and of ta- 
bles." 

These washings, practiced so commonly 
among the Jews, were not simply for the sake 
of decency, but were ceremonial purifica- 
tions supposed to be enjoined by the law of 
Moses. The Jewish economy stood, as we 
have seen, largely in "divers baptisms." Un- 
der the tradition of the elders, the most scru- 
pulous regard was paid to these ceremonies 
daily. If one touched a dead body, there was a 
certain formula for his cleansing. But under 
the tradition of the elders, this and like cere- 
monies were widened out into almost constant 
use for fear they might possibly have touched 
something. It was thought to be almost sac- 
rilegious to omit the baptism of one's hands be- 
fore taking a meal. On one occasion Jesus 
dined with a Pharisee (Luke xi. 37, 38): "And 
he went in, and sat down to meat. And when 
the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that he had 
not first washed [ebaptisthe] before dinner." 
The table-ware and every thing connected with 
the meal had to be purified, lest something 



230 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

that was defiled entering in with the food 
might defile the man. 

Now these washings, or ceremonial purifica- 
tions, are denominated in the New Testament 
" baptisms." The question before as, then, is 
to determine if possible how these Jewish bap- 
tisms were performed If that can be done, 
and done satisfactorily, it will settle at once 
and forever the meaning of the word baptize as 
ii was generally understood among the Jews, 
and as it denotes a religious ordinance. And 
when we discover what the Jews understood 
by baptism, we are certainly not far from a 
proper understanding of the word as it applies 
to the Christian ordinance. Fortunately for 
our purpose we have, on good authority, a most 
minute description of the custom of the Jews 
with respect to these things. John ii. 1-6: 
"And the third day there was a marriage in 
Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was 
there; and both Jesus was called, and his dis- 
ciples, to the marriage. And when they wanted 
wine . the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They 
have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, 
what have I to do with thee ? mine hour is not 
yet come. His mother saith unto the servants, 
Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. And 
there were set there six water-pots of stone, after 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 231 

the manner [or custom] of the purifying of the 
Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece." 

Observe, first, that these water-pots were 
set there " after the manner [or custom] of the 
purifying of the Jews." which; as we have seen, 
was to baptize cups, pots, brazen vessels, tables, 
etc.. before eating. 

Second, there were six water-pots present 
for this purpose, and not one large basin big 
enough to put things in. This afforded the 
greater convenience as the water-pots could be 
distributed, and thus made accessible. 

Third, the capacity of these jars — "two or 
three firkins a piece." The largest estimate of 
a firkin is about eight or nine gallons. Each 
of these contained two or three firkins — no 
great quantity, indeed. 

Now, I ask, is it at all likely that any im- 
mersion was practiced on this occasion? Does 
any one suppose that all the vessels, and even 
the tables, or beds as they are sometimes called 
— tables that they reclined on at their meals — 
were taken up and actually put into the jars 
and immersed? No one, I dare say, will en- 
tertain such a thought. It is impossible. The 
process was by sprinkling the water sparsely 
about upon the articles. And what was done 
at the marriage in Cana in this way is a fair 



232 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

example of the custom of the Jews in this 
matter. Mr. A. Campbell, in his version of 
the New Testament, says (Mark vii. 3, 4): 
"They eat not till they have washed their 
hands by pouring a little water upon them; and 
if they come from the market , by dipping 
them." This attempt by Mr Campbell to 
make the purification of the hands on com- 
ing from the market something different from 
what was practiced at other times is altogeth- 
er unwarranted. There is no law of the Jews, 
nor any tradition of the Jews, that made any 
such distinction. The custom was the same 
on all occasions before taking meals, and un- 
der all circumstances. The Pharisee marveled 
at Jesus (Luke xi. 38) "because he had not 
first baptizecrbefore dinner." He had not been 
to any market, and it was the omission to wash 
his hands that made the Pharisee marvel. If, 
as Mr. Campbell says, this washing of the 
hands was done ordinarily by pouring a little 
ivater on them, then it was done on all occa- 
sions in that same way, for there was no differ- 
ence. The fact is, the words nipsontai and bap- 
tisontai in Mark vii. 3 are used synonymously. 
That is all. 

BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST. 
I do not think that any thirg further is need- 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 233 

ed to demonstrate the truth that baptism may 
be performed by sprinkling. Two or three 
examples of baptism actually performed in 
this manner, and that too according to the. 
statement and on the authority of inspired 
men, ought to be sufficient to satisfy the most 
incredulous. I now propose to show that bap- 
tism may also be administered by pouring. 
And to do so effectually we have only to advert 
to that notable instance of the word to describe 
the influence and gifts of the Holy Ghost. 
John the Baptist foretold (Matt. iii. 11): ''He 
shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with 
fire." Jesus himself, after his resurrection 
from the dead, and before his ascension to the 
right-hand of the Father on high, commanded 
his disciples (Acts i. 4, 5) "that they should 
not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the 
promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have 
heard of me. For John truly baptized with 
water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy 
Ghost not many days hence'' This promise, an- 
nounced originally by the prophets and re- 
newed by John, was verily fulfilled " not many 
days afterward' on the day of Pentecost. 
That we may know what took place, and Jwiv 
it was done, we have only to turn and read the 
account given in Acts ii. 1-4: ''And when the 



234 THE TOKEN OE THE COVENANT. 

day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all 
with one accord in one place. And suddenly 
there came a sound from heaven as of a rush- 
ing mighty wind, and it filled all the house 
where they were sitting. And there appeared 
unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and 
it sat upon each of them. And they were all 
filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak 
with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them ut- 
terance." This was the baptism of the Holy 
Ghost. It consisted simply in giving them the 
power and influence of the Spirit of God. 
Their minds were illumined, and their hearts 
cheered and comforted, and a remarkable de- 
gree of knowledge was imparted unto them. 
It was as if a gracious shower of blessings had 
fallen upon them. The prophet Joel, describ- 
ing this event (Joel ii. 28) years before, said: 
"And it shall come to pass afterward, that I 
will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh." Isaiah 
said also (Isaiah xxxii. 15): "Until the Spirit 
be poured upon us from on high, and the wil- 
derness be a fruitful field." And again Isaiah 
said (xliv. 3): "For I will pour water upon 
him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry 
ground; I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed, 
and my blessing upon thine offspring." What 
these prophets described as a pouring out of 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 235 

the Spirit of God upon the people, John and 
Jesus both called the baptism of the Holy 
Ghost. Peter too, alluding to the baptism of 
the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, de- 
clares that it was the fulfillment of Joel's 
prophecy, and quotes the very language of that 
prophecy, and applies it. That this was a 
baptism, then, there can be no doubt whatever; 
and that it was done by pouring is equally cer- 
tain. 

A repetition of this baptism by the Holy 
Spirit after the same manner took place in the 
house of Cornelius (Acts xi. 15, 16): "And as 
I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on tJioif, 
as on its at the beginning. Then remembered I 
the word of the Lord, how that he said, John 
indeed baptized with water; bid ye shall be bap- 
tized with the Holy Ghost." This was another 
instance of the fulfillment of the promise of 
the Father made by John that the Holy Ghost 
should baptize them; and it took place after 
the same manner that it did on the day of 
Pentecost — by pouring. So striking was it that 
Peter immediately called to mind the words 
of Jesus: "Then remembered I the word of 
the Lord, how that he said," etc. 

This settles the question, therefore, that the 
word baptize does not denote specific action, 



236 THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT. 

and that in the inspired writings it does not 
mean an immersion, but means something that 
may be done by pouring. If mode must be ac- 
cepted, then we prefer sprinkling or pouring 
to the exclusion of all others, for we have proof 
positive that Scripture baptisms were per- 
formed in this way, 

This baptism of the Holy Ghost announced 
by John s ministry, and held up continually in 
contradistinction to the baptism which he ad- 
ministered by water, and of which his baptism 
was no doubt typical in some measure, being 
administered by pouring, affords a very strong 
presumption that John baptized in that way 
too. Peter was familiar with both, and when 
he saw that the Holy Ghost fell on an audience 
to which he was preaching, baptizing them, his 
mind adverted in a moment to John's baptism 
and the promise that he had made. If John 
immersed the people in the river, why should 
Peter ever see a symbol of his baptism in the 
descent of the Holy Ghost? 

Various attempts have been made to get rid 
of the argument in favor of pouring from the 
baptism of the Holy Ghost, but to little pur- 
pose. The fact still remains, and will forever 
remain, that that baptism was done by pour- 
ing; and as the Holy Ghost knows the mean- 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 237 

ing of words and of things, we have a right 
to conclude that any baptism, especially that 
which is symbolical of the baptism of the 
Spirit, may be administered in this way. 

But it may be said — and in fact has been 
said — that the pouring, the act of pouring, in 
the baptism of the Holy Spirit, was not the 
baptism, but the baptism was the result of 
pouring. It is thought that in this way a sort 
of immersion can be made of the case after 
all. But we have never assumed that the pour- 
ing of the Holy Spirit constituted the baptism 
on that occasion. We have denied repeatedly 
that baptism consists in specific action of any 
kind; and it therefore does not consist in pour- 
ing, but is the result accomplished. It was the 
influence of the Holy Spirit on the minds and 
hearts of the disciples that made the baptism, 
and this, as we have seen, was poured out, shed 
upon them, and very plainly attests the truth 
of our theory that baptism may be performed 
by pouring. Nor can we discover in this re- 
sult of the outpouring of the Spirit the least 
semblance of an immersion. It was not the 
Spirit that filled "all the house where they 
were sitting," and that they are sometimes said 
to have been immersed in; it was the " sound 
as of a mighty rushing wind " that filled the 



238 THE TOKEN OE THE COVENANT. 

place. " They were all filled with the Holy 
Ghost," and not the Holy Ghost filled with 
them. True, the Holy Spirit is omnipresent, 
and we all live and move in him, but this ex- 
traordinary manifestation of his power was 
confined to the hearts of the disciples, and was 
given by pouring, as it were. 

If it be said that the Holy Spirit cannot 
be literally poured out, our answer is that that 
is true. The Spirit is not a material sub- 
stance, and cannot, in any literal sense, be 
poured. The language must be taken in a fig • 
urative or tropical sense, and not in a physical 
one. But this, instead of weakening the ar- 
gument, gives cogency and strength to it. 
The very foundation of the figure is found in 
the similitude that exists between a literal, 
physical baptism and this figurative outpour- 
ing of the Spirit. If no such likeness pre- 
vailed, it would be foolish — nay, absurd — to 
call that work of the Holy Spirit a baptism 
which in fact found no resemblance in any 
baptism expressed by the language of the 
tongue. Eeasonmg, then, from the figurative 
to the literal, wherein there must of necessity 
be a striking correspondence, we are led to the 
conclusion that baptism properly administered 
is by pouring. As the Christian institute, then, 



MODE OF BAPTISM. 239 

was appointed to be in some measure a symbol 
of the gracious influences of the Divine Spirit 
upon the hearts and conciences of men, and 
as that heavenly baptism was done by pour- 
ing, so we conclude that it is altogether ap- 
propriate to administer the ordinance of bap- 
tism itself after the same manner. 



THE END. 



Index of scripture Texts 



^VGE 

Genesis xii. 1-3 84 

Genesis viii. 14 84 

Genesis xv. 1-5 84 

Genesis xvii. 13 85 

Leviticus xix. 8 220 

2 Kings v. 14 218 

Isaiah xxi. 4 225 

Isaiah xxxiii. 15 234 

Isaiah xliv. 3 ....234 

Daniel iv. 33 ......214 

Joel ii. 28 234 

Matthew iii. 5, 6 , ..178 

Matthew iii. 11 233 

Matthew iii. 11 109 

Matthew xviii. 3 133 

Matthew xxviii. 19, 20.. 118 

Mark i. 4 28 

Mark i. 1-5 178 

Mark vii. 1-4 228 

Markix. 31 15 

Markx. 38 157 

Mark xvi. 16 32 

Markxvi. 16 128 

Luke.xi. 37, 38 229 

Lukexi. 38 232 

Luke xii. 50 158 

John i. 28 182 

John ii. 1-6 230 

John iii. 5 34 

John iii. 25 176 

John iii. 26.. 183 

Acts i. 4,5 233 

Actsii. 1-4 233 

Actsii. 38 43 

Actsii. 38 108 

Actsii. 38 125 

(240) 



PAGE 

Acts iii. 25 97 

Acts viii. 36-38 192 

Actsxi. 15, 16 235 

Acts xv. 6 49 

Acts xvi. 34 131 

Acts xix. 1-5 30 

Romans ii. 28 91 

Romans iv. 18-22 68 

Romans iv. 23, 24 71 

Romans iv. 23 129 

Romans vi. 3, 4 55 

Romans vi. 4 11 

Romans vi. 4 Ill 

Romans vi. 4 203 

Romans xi. 17 101 

Romans xv. 8 95 

Galatians iii. 8 96 

Galatians iii. 15-18 72 

Galatians iii. 27 112 

Galatians iii. 28 106 

Ephesians ii. 11, 12 98 

Colossians ii. 12 14 

Colossians ii. 12 206 

1 Corinthians x. 1, 2 197 

Titus iii. 5 60 

Hebrews ix. 10 226 

Hebrews ix. 13 227 

Hebrews x. 1-4 25 

James ii. 21-24 69 

1 Peter iii. 21 51 

Revelation xix. 13 215 

Apocrypha. 

Judith xii. 5-7 223 

Sirach xxxiv. 30 220 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Dnve 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



$v 



